The court held that issuing a single GST notice for multiple tax periods is illegal. All consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty to initiate fresh action lawfully.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] without providing pre-decisional hearing and without providing reasons to believe is not justifiable and hence order is liable to be quashed.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that no personal hearing was granted under Section 75(4). The ruling reiterates that adverse GST orders cannot be passed without following mandatory hearing requirements.
The Court considered a request to permit limited operation of a frozen account for salary payments. It deferred interim relief and directed disclosure of employee details for respondent’s verification.
Appellate authorities could not summarily dismiss applications without verifying the actual submissions made by the taxpayer as for service exporters, FIRCs and BRCs were the gold standard for proving that services were exported, and proceeds were realized in convertible foreign exchange.
Karnataka High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. is exercisable only in exceptional circumstances. Thus, interim bail stands rejected since present matter cannot be termed as exceptional.
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The High Court quashed an ex parte GST adjudication passed without personal hearing. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after the Supreme Court decides the pending challenge to limitation-extension notifications.
The High Court held that a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is illegal and without jurisdiction. All proceedings based on such a composite notice were quashed.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority after introduction of the faceless scheme. All notices, assessment orders, and demands were set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
