The Court held that once a revised return is filed, the original return stands obliterated. Ignoring the revised return was treated as a legal error, leading to remand for fresh assessment.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST, applying the reading down principle to Section 16(2)(c).
The issue was whether portal uploading alone amounts to valid service. The Court restrained coercive action, holding that authorities must follow statutory service modes.
The court ruled that genuine purchasers cannot lose ITC because a supplier failed to deposit GST. Section 16(2)(c) must be applied only to fraudulent or collusive cases.
The Court held that penalty proceedings issued six to nine years late under the repealed VAT law were unreasonable and without jurisdiction. It ruled that powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe and quashed all notices and orders.
Tripura High Court held that an order accepting bond under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC]from the accused doesn’t amount to a grant of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of.
Tripura High Court rules that collection of GST penalty without passing a formal order under Section 129(3) is unlawful, and directs refund with interest.
State could not blacklist a company after approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and that the new management could not be punished for the actions of the old management.
Tripura High Court refuses to intervene in a GST case, directing the transporter to cooperate with the ongoing adjudication process for an expired e-way bill.
The Petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondents not to proceed further on the basis of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act of 1961 and drop the proceedings after considering the objection dated 21.02.2022. Petitioner also prayed for an interim stay of the impugned notice.
