Patna High Court ruled that recovered GST amounts should be returned to the taxpayer after withdrawal of the assessment order. The dispute related to tax demand issued through Form GST DRC-07.
Patna HC refused to interfere with GST proceedings after taxpayer’s representative admitted liability towards interest and penalty during personal hearing. Court held that petitioner could not later take a contradictory stand in writ proceedings.
High Court directed authorities to examine claims relating to additional road work, carriage charges, GST differential, and deductions from running bills. The Court refrained from deciding the merits and ordered consideration of pending representations.
The High Court held that summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act were valid and interference at the investigation stage would obstruct the ongoing inquiry into alleged fake ITC claims.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration allegedly without proper hearing. The court allowed the petitioner to approach the appellate tribunal, emphasizing use of statutory remedies.
The case examined validity of a GST demand passed without hearing the taxpayer. The Court held that absence of personal hearing violates natural justice, requiring the order to be set aside.
The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. It granted liberty to approach the Tribunal and disposed of the writ petition.
The issue was whether delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Court held that lack of sufficient cause and negligence justified rejection of the delay application.
The Court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and found that the petitioner’s actions were bona fide. It held that no offence was established and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
Highlighting repeated flooding and large-scale public benefit, the Court refused to stop the embankment project. It concluded that the scheme was sanctioned after detailed study and served public interest.
