The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the competent authority to decide a representation alleging fraudulent GST record manipulation and misappropriation of GST amounts. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits and required a reasoned order within one month.
The High Court granted bail in a GST fraud prosecution after noting that the investigation had been completed and the complaint had already been filed. The Court held that the allegations would be examined during trial and continued custody was not warranted at that stage.
The High Court granted regular bail on the principle of parity after noting that a similarly placed co-accused had already been released. The ruling emphasizes consistent treatment of accused persons in comparable circumstances.
The challenge concerns provisions inserted into the Haryana GST Act and a subsequent executive order dealing with collection of entry tax. The Court found that the matter raises important questions regarding legislative competence.
The Court granted bail after taking note of the petitioner’s extended incarceration and the lack of criminal antecedents. It held that continued detention was not warranted at that stage.
The High Court set aside the tax demand after finding that refunds had been granted and appellate relief accepted on the same facts for other periods. The key takeaway is that inconsistent treatment without distinction in facts or law cannot be sustained.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to disclose the factual basis of the allegations. The ruling emphasizes the need for a meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that preferential location charges for flats form part of construction services and cannot be taxed separately. The Court quashed earlier advance ruling orders after relying on the GST Council recommendation and government clarification.
The High Court held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at a premature stage when reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are yet to be concluded. The petitioner was directed to pursue statutory remedies.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31 of the IBC, tax demands not included in the plan stand extinguished. The Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and penalty proceedings.
