High Court held CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because it was claimed on debit notes where supporting precedents remained valid.
Telangana HC declined to examine the merits and allowed the taxpayer to file a statutory appeal with a delay condonation application. The appellate authority was directed to consider the delay and decide the appeal on merits if satisfied.
The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that disputes over an SEZ IGST refund should be examined by the appellate authority. It permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal with all available grounds.
The Telangana High Court held that a show cause notice merely reproducing Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act without disclosing factual allegations violates principles of natural justice. It set aside both the cancellation notice and the suspension of GST registration while permitting fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
The High Court upheld the Tribunals finding that an uncorroborated loose Excel sheet could not sustain an addition of alleged on-money. It ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings disclosed no perversity or substantial question of law.
The Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the reassessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition, leaving all issues open for future adjudication.
The case involved rejection of a GST registration revocation application after the taxpayer failed to reply to a show cause notice. The High Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh manual application, directing the authority to consider it independently of the earlier rejection.
The case concerned a challenge to an order-in-original and a subsequent garnishee notice issued for recovery under the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court granted the petitioner four weeks to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy and restrained coercive recovery during that period.
The case involved rejection of a GST rectification application filed beyond the six-month limitation prescribed under Section 161 of the CGST Act. The High Court held that the appropriate remedy was to file a statutory appeal and granted two weeks to do so without examining the merits.
The High Court ruled that merely reproducing statutory provisions without factual particulars deprives the taxpayer of an effective opportunity to respond, rendering the notice legally unsustainable.
