The Court held that pendency of a Supreme Court challenge on fish meal GST does not waive the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appeal. The petitioner must comply before the appeal is entertained.
The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. However, it ruled that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose his PAN number to defendants.
The Court held that assessment for FY 2024–25 cannot be passed under Section 74 after its omission by amendment. The order was quashed and directed to be treated as a show cause notice.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
Holding that responsibility for delay required factual adjudication, the High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the parties to civil or arbitral remedies.
The Court ruled that GST proceedings initiated under Section 74 for FY 2024–25 were without jurisdiction and directed treatment of the order as a Section 74A notice.
The Court held that ITC earlier denied as time-barred cannot stand after the retrospective relaxation under Section 16(5), reinforcing substantive credit rights.
The Court quashed a GST demand where discrepancies arose from double entry in returns, granting a fresh hearing subject to a 25% pre-deposit and directing reconsideration on merits.
The High Court quashed a GST demand where part of the liability arose from belated ITC and part from return mismatch, directing fresh adjudication in light of retrospective statutory amendments.
The High Court condoned a 285-day delay in filing a GST appeal and restored the matter for decision on merits, holding that sufficient cause was shown.
