The court refused to entertain a constitutional challenge raised to bypass limitation. It allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation subject to conditions.
The court declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) in absence of clear factual basis. It held that disputed facts must be examined through statutory appellate remedies.
The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with supporting documents before the proper officer.
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.
