The Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter after noting the statutory amendment allowing ITC for earlier years. The authority must reconsider the case in light of Section 16(5) and CBIC clarification.
The High Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected based on a time limit prescribed only in rules. The ruling restores refunds where the parent statute provides no limitation.
Jharkhand High Court held that levy of electricity duty on the basis of ‘net charges’ as introduced by the 1st Amendment Act, 2021 is ultra vires to the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948. Accordingly, 1st Amendment Act, 2021 and the Rules, 2021 are declared ultra vires to the Act, 1948.
The Court quashed a GST refund rejection passed without granting the full statutory reply period and personal hearing. It held that non-compliance with Rule 92 vitiates the refund order.
The issue was whether the EPF appellate tribunal could mechanically order pre-deposit. The High Court held that failure to consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury renders such an order unsustainable.
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to an accused in a GST evasion case involving Rs. 22 crore, considering the petitioner’s four-month custody and the statutory maximum punishment.
Since valid service of notice was a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before initiating reassessment proceedings, therefore, purported notices issued under Section 148 including reassessment proceedings under
The Court noted that the GST-related allegation concerned only the firm’s proprietor, while the petitioners were merely agents. Anticipatory bail was granted with directions to surrender and comply with statutory conditions.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application in the case of fake firms for passing on ineligible ITC by issuing fake GST bills not granted since twin conditions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] not fulfilled.
The court reaffirmed that reassessment notices under Section 148 must be issued via the CBDT-prescribed automated system. Notices issued by local officers without allocation are considered without jurisdiction.
