The Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to decide pending cancellation proceedings within two weeks after noting that the taxpayer’s business operations had come to a standstill.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to file a physical application for revocation of cancelled GST registration after expiry of the statutory timeline. The authority was directed to consider the request in accordance with law within three weeks.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ challenge against a Section 74 GST order and pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal and delay condonation request in accordance with law.
Telangana High Court directed the tax authorities to accept a manual application for revocation of GST registration cancellation since the GST portal no longer permitted online filing.
Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically since the petitioner had approached the High Court first.
Telangana High Court directed authorities to accept a physical application for revocation of cancelled GST registration where the GST portal no longer permitted online filing. The Court granted relief after noting the cancellation arose from filing NIL returns.
Telangana High Court held that payment of outstanding GST dues during adjudication does not exempt a taxpayer from mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal. The Court clarified that penalty disputes must be decided by the appellate authority on merits.
Telangana High Court held that taxpayers cannot seek exemption from mandatory GST appellate pre-deposit merely because the disputed tax amount was already paid during adjudication.
The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The Court clarified that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
ITAT Delhi held that Section 56(2)(x) could not be applied to property transactions relating to Assessment Year 2017-18 because the provision became effective only from AY 2018-19. The Tribunal deleted the addition made on the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration.
