The Court held that reassessment based solely on material seized in a third-party search must proceed under Section 153C, not Section 148. Notices issued under the general reassessment provision were set aside.
The issue was whether accused persons in alleged GST evasion were entitled to bail. The Court held that the seriousness of the offence and electronic evidence justified rejection of bail.
The High Court declined to entertain writ petitions challenging an ex parte GST order, holding that an effective statutory appeal was available. The ruling reinforces that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when alternative remedies exist.
The ruling held that reassessment proceedings initiated after the permissible period were legally unsustainable. The decision reinforces strict adherence to limitation provisions.
The court ruled that depositing money does not convert a non-bailable GST offence into a bailable one, yet upheld bail considering custody, punishment limits, and surrounding circumstances.
The court held that a reassessment notice issued by the jurisdictional officer violated the faceless assessment scheme. As a result, the notice and the consequential assessment order were set aside, subject to liberty if higher courts take a different view.
The Court examined whether the Rajasthan ACB could investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees without CBI approval. It held that the ACB has concurrent jurisdiction under the PC Act and such investigations are valid in law.
Rajasthan High Court held that appellate authorities cannot extend limitation beyond Section 107 of CGST Act, but condoned delay as the petitioner had sought registration cancellation and reasonably missed the portal order, directing appeal hearing on merits.
The Court dealt with a GST dispute where the appeal period had expired due to uncertainty over Section 168A proceedings. It condoned the delay and allowed the appeal to be heard on merits without limitation objections.
The High Court quashed dismissal of a GST appeal where the authority ignored the explanation for delayed filing. The ruling stresses reasoned consideration under Section 107(4) before rejecting appeals.
