The case addressed whether a refund rejection without granting a personal hearing and providing only seven days to respond was valid. The court set aside the order, holding that such action violated Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice.
The court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that an effective appellate remedy was available under the GST law. It emphasized that factual disputes and corrigendum validity must be examined through statutory appeals, not writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that Rule 86A applies only when the assessee fraudulently avails ITC. Since the allegation concerned the recipient’s ITC, the notice was without jurisdiction and was set aside.
The case addressed an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s response to the show cause notice. The Court quashed the order and allowed fresh adjudication subject to a 50% pre-deposit, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The Court held that a CGST assessment order must be challenged through statutory appeal, not writ jurisdiction. It clarified that alternate remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court.
The Court held that cancellation for non-filing of returns can be revisited if the taxpayer clears dues and files returns. Authorities may restore registration under Rule 22(4) upon compliance.
The case involved cash deposits during demonetization treated as unexplained income. The tribunal accepted the explanation of foreign remittances and deleted the addition, emphasizing lack of contrary evidence.
he issue was whether penalty under Section 271E can stand after deletion of the underlying addition. The tribunal held that once the addition is deleted, the penalty loses its foundation and must be cancelled.
The Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) cures delayed ITC claims for earlier years. The matter was remanded for fresh verification subject to submission of supporting documents.
The issue was whether delayed charges without supporting records could qualify as operational debt. The Tribunal ruled that absence of invoices and ledger entries made the claim unascertained and disputed.
