High Court held that GST authorities must consider CBIC circular clarifying implementation of Section 16(5) before sustaining denial of input tax credit for delayed return filing.
The Jharkhand High Court held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism merely by alleging non-service of notices. The Court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to file an appeal under the GST law.
The Court clarified that local self-government bodies are not automatically exempt from GST on all activities. It ruled that such claims require factual scrutiny and cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism.
The issue involved alleged cyber fraud where funds were credited to the petitioner’s account. The Court granted relief considering absence of criminal history and willingness to return the money.
The issue was whether a writ could bypass the statutory appeal against a GST order. The court held it could not, but allowed filing of appeal within four weeks without limitation objections.
The case addressed whether delayed appeals can be entertained through writ jurisdiction. The Court ruled that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
The issue was non-service of an income tax order and availability of remedy. The Court allowed withdrawal and granted liberty to appeal while directing supply of the order.
The Court addressed whether appeals could proceed despite low tax effect. It held that since Rule 8(3A) was already struck down and not in issue, appeals were not maintainable.
The court held that an appeal under Section 260A cannot be entertained when it merely seeks re-appreciation of evidence, upholding the addition confirmed by lower authorities.
The Court directed time-bound action for implementing an appellate order granting TDS relief. It held that refunds due after success in appeal must not be unnecessarily delayed.
