The case addressed denial of refund of VAT pre-deposit made through ITC. The Court held that Section 142(6) mandates cash refund and overrides conflicting departmental circulars, ensuring taxpayer relief.
The court held that delay in filing returns can bar deduction under Section 80P. It directed the taxpayer to seek condonation under Section 119(2)(b). The ruling emphasizes compliance with statutory timelines.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns. The Court held that registration can be revived if pending returns and dues are cleared as per prescribed conditions.
The issue involved cancellation for non-filing of returns during the pandemic. The Court held that registration can be restored subject to filing returns and payment of dues.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The case addressed whether stock discrepancies could be attributed to a sister concern. The Court held that absence of supporting evidence justified the VAT demand and confirmed the assessment.
The case addressed whether a 247-day delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to pandemic-related disruptions. The Court condoned the delay citing exceptional circumstances and directed adjudication on merits.
The issue involved rejection of an appeal against GST cancellation on limitation grounds. The Court granted relief by following consistent precedents, allowing restoration subject to compliance conditions.
The Court held that failure to consider a filed reply invalidates the assessment. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with hearing opportunity.
The court held that the impugned GST notifications were invalid as they curtailed limitation and were based on erroneous legal assumptions. The ruling clarifies that such arbitrary notifications cannot override statutory provisions.
