Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed a winding up petition, holding that a bona fide dispute over liability required adjudication before the appropriate forum.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational, taxpayers must ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The writ petition challenging a refund-related appellate order was dismissed with liberty to approach GSTAT.
The Court held that a taxpayer who does not respond to a show cause notice cannot later invoke writ jurisdiction alleging procedural violations. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain challenges to GST adjudication orders because a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. The Court held that disputed findings on service tax liability should be examined by the appellate authority.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after finding that the appeal was filed beyond limitation and without the required pre-deposit. The Court held that statutory remedies cannot be bypassed through writ jurisdiction.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition was not maintainable where the assessee failed to file a timely statutory appeal and did not comply with the mandatory GST pre-deposit requirement. The Court also noted that notices uploaded on the GST portal could not be ignored.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation after noting the availability of an appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appeal mechanism.
The case examined whether a lower TDS certificate applies prospectively or for the full year. The Court held it applies to the entire assessment year, negating default and interest liability.
The issue was whether an Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass a GST demand order. The Court held the order invalid due to lack of proper authorization. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional compliance is mandatory for tax orders.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
