The Rajasthan High Court held that the benefit of Section 115BAA could not be denied when Form 10-IC was filed within the period permitted under CBDT Circulars. The Court ruled that procedural delay could not defeat a clearly exercised tax option.
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail in a case involving alleged large-scale GST evasion through fake firms, bogus invoices, and fraudulent e-way bills. The Court held that serious economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a stricter approach in bail matters.
The Rajasthan High Court held that GST authorities cannot reopen issues already adjudicated by the Authority for Advance Ruling without fresh material or change in facts. The Court quashed show cause notices alleging misclassification of tobacco products under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
The case involved refusal to entertain a delayed GST appeal due to limitation. The Court followed its earlier ruling and directed authorities to hear the appeal on merits subject to statutory deposits.
The case involved delay in filing GST appeal due to death of a key partner managing operations. The Court held that such circumstances constitute sufficient cause and directed the appeal to be heard on merits after statutory compliance.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration and delay in filing appeal due to illness. The Court held that writ jurisdiction can override limitation where sufficient cause is shown and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
The Court held that withdrawal of promised electricity duty exemption after investment violates promissory estoppel. Key takeaway: State cannot defeat vested rights created by clear policy assurances.
The High Court allowed delay in filing GST appeal due to repeated family bereavements beyond the taxpayer’s control. Key takeaway: genuine hardship can justify condonation and enable appeal on merits.
The court examined whether reassessment could proceed without any incriminating material from search. It held that absence of such material vitiates jurisdiction, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The court held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 ceases once a final order under Section 74 is issued. The ruling reinforces that subsequent challenges must focus on the final order, not interim measures.
