The case examined whether reassessment proceedings were valid when approval was obtained from an incorrect authority. The Court held the sanction invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements, rendering the reassessment void. The ruling highlights strict adherence to approval hierarchy in reopening cases.
The Court found that tax already paid cannot be demanded again through adjudication proceedings. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with proof of payment.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation even after expiry of the statutory timeline. It directed authorities to consider delay condonation and decide the matter on merits.
The issue was whether a GST order passed without considering reply should be set aside in writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
The issue was whether a delayed writ against a GST order should be entertained. The Court declined to examine merits and allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation.
The issue was whether relief could be granted against a GST assessment order through writ. The Court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal with delay condonation, leaving merits open.
Sections 74 and 74A operate on fundamentally different legal principles. The Court noted that their combined invocation raises serious legal concerns. Key takeaway: contradictory provisions cannot be applied together.
Recovery action was initiated even after partial tax payment. The Court held that instalment relief must be sought through Form DRC-20. Key takeaway: procedural compliance is essential to obtain payment relief.
The case involved a penalty imposed despite the main tax demand being set aside in appeal. The Court held that the petitioner should seek rectification before the proper officer.
The Court addressed the issue where the GST portal prevented filing of a revocation application due to time limits. It allowed manual submission and directed authorities to consider it.
