The Supreme Court held that refund of GST collected and passed on to consumers must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. It ruled that courts cannot create alternative refund mechanisms outside Section 54 of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that reassessment beyond three years requires sanction under Section 151(ii). Notices issued with approval from the wrong authority were invalid.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue’s plea and affirmed that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines.
The Court upheld that sugar, edible oil and vanaspati fall within Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Marketing Act. Market fees can be levied if procurement occurs within the notified market area.
The Court found no merit in interfering with the High Court’s order setting aside a belated reassessment notice. It confirmed that notices issued after the statutory limitation period are invalid.
The Supreme Court confirmed that reassessment powers under Section 148 cannot be used to bypass the statutory scheme for search cases. The decision clarifies the distinct operating fields of Sections 153C and 148.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s direction to process Section 10(46) applications. The ruling affirms that existing approval under Section 10(23C) is not an absolute bar.
The Supreme Court stayed a High Court ruling that barred parallel appeal and rectification proceedings under excise law. The case highlights limits on pursuing multiple remedies at the same time.
A GST demand was quashed as the assessee was denied an opportunity to respond due to non-service of notice. The Court allowed fresh adjudication while rejecting claims of vagueness in the notice.
The Supreme Court held that reassessment notices cannot be issued if limitation had expired under the old regime. The ruling affirms that the first proviso to Section 149 prevents retrospective reopening of assessments.
