The Kerala High Court set aside a Single Judge’s decision after finding that earlier Division Bench directions to decide the writ petition on merits were not followed. The case involving attachment of a DRAT pre-deposit was remanded again for fresh consideration with liberty for all parties to raise their contentions.
Kerala High Court held that provisional release is not contemplated under section 130 of the CGST Act. Also held that continued detention of goods is not legally sustainable, merely because the proceedings u/s. 130 is in progress.
The Court held that teaser content indicated possible non-application of mind by CBFC and potential communal disharmony. It directed reconsideration of the revision petition and stayed release for 15 days.
The Kerala High Court held that a time-barred appeal under Section 107 cannot be bypassed through a writ petition. Disputed issues of service of orders were found unsuitable for writ jurisdiction.
Finding that the appellate authority failed to address the petitioner s objections, the Court quashed the rejection of the technical bid as arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
The Court held that a genuine mistake in revised TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 filings cannot nullify substantive transitional ITC claims. It permitted rectification and directed fresh adjudication after verification.
The High Court held that the benefit under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act prevails over Section 16(4), quashing an order rejecting ITC due to delayed return filing.
The Court held that an appeal filed nearly three years after the original order was barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Uploading the order on the GST portal was deemed valid service.
The High Court held that non-compliance with enhanced pre-deposit under the extended appeal scheme was a curable defect. It quashed the rejection and directed restoration of the appeal for consideration on merits.
The Kerala High Court set aside composite notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act for multiple assessment years. It held that such notices prejudice taxpayers and exceed statutory authority.
