The High Court remitted GST DRC-07 orders after noting that show cause notices were not replied to. Relief was granted subject to a 10% pre-deposit and filing of consolidated replies.
The court ruled that invoking an inapplicable statutory provision vitiates revision. Proper identification of the governing section is mandatory before exercising revisional powers.
The High Court sent the matter back for fresh adjudication after a GST demand was confirmed due to non-filing of a reply. Relief was granted subject to partial pre-deposit and filing of objections.
The court found a prima facie overlap between excess ITC due to non-reconciliation and ITC disallowed under Section 16(4), directing partial pre-deposit and fresh adjudication.
The High Court found prima facie overlap between two assessment proceedings for the same tax period. The demand was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a reply.
The Court restored GST registration after accepting that non-filing of returns for six months was caused by genuine illness and financial constraints. Restoration was granted subject to strict compliance conditions.
The case examined the effect of prolonged departmental inaction after a Tribunal remand. The Court ruled that since the statutory time limit had long lapsed, nothing survived for adjudication.
The Court found that intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154(3) were not communicated due to technical reasons. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after a revised audit report was filed.
The Madras High Court held that failure to follow the mandatory pre-consultative process before issuing show cause notices vitiates proceedings. Notices were set aside and matters remanded to the pre-consultation stage.
The High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice for more than one financial year is impermissible. Each financial year is a separate unit with its own limitation period.
