The issue involved denial of a personal hearing despite a specific request. The Court ruled that failure to provide such an opportunity violates statutory provisions and requires the order to be set aside.
The issue was whether ITC can be denied if suppliers fail to deposit tax. The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be penalized, and action must be taken against defaulting suppliers.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The court set aside GST orders after finding both original and appellate proceedings were effectively ex-parte. It held that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice before adjudication.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case examined whether ITC reversal made during inspection was voluntary. The Court held that the timing and presence of authorities indicated lack of voluntariness. It further restored proceedings to protect the Revenue’s statutory rights and allowed fresh action.
The High Court quashed a service tax demand passed ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the show cause notice stage.
The High Court examined a tax demand arising from ITC mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It held that authorities must follow the reconciliation procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular before adjudication. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Court ruled that authorities cannot deny ITC by disregarding binding CBIC circulars. It held that cross-charging of ITC is legally permissible alongside ISD.
The court held that deduction under Section 80P cannot be granted where no return of income is filed. The key takeaway is that claiming deduction in a valid return is mandatory.
