The petition challenged a common Section 74 notice and adjudication order spanning FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court stayed the operation of the adjudication order pending further proceedings.
The petitioner challenged the issuance of one notice for multiple years and questioned the validity of the resulting orders. The High Court stayed the operation of the impugned orders pending further consideration.
The petitioner argued that each assessment year requires separate consideration, including limitation aspects. The High Court issued notice and stayed further adjudication.
The petitioner challenged a single Section 74 GST notice issued for FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court issued notice and stayed the passing of the final order pending further proceedings.
The High Court condoned a 720-day delay in filing a GST appeal after finding that severe financial difficulties and circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control caused the delay. The appeal was directed to be heard on merits.
The Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice and adjudication order, holding that the petitioner had an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that an Assessing Officer’s quasi-judicial decision cannot attract disciplinary action merely because another view was possible. Absence of mala fides or lack of integrity defeated the misconduct charge.
The Rajasthan High Court held that notices issued under Section 148A to a deceased person are a nullity. However, the Department was allowed to reinitiate proceedings against legal representatives in accordance with law.
The Rajasthan High Court held that reassessment proceedings against legal representatives of a deceased assessee must comply with Section 148A(b). Notices and orders issued without following the mandatory procedure were quashed.
The Court granted bail after noting that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the alleged offences carried a maximum sentence of five years. The petitioner was directed to cooperate during trial.
