Reimbursement of interim payments from insured banks in priority to other liabilities was a valid exercise of legislative competence. The argument that the DICGC, being an insurer, was limited to the rights of subrogation and could not rank higher than the insured depositors was rejected.
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Bangalore ITAT held that once a notice under Section 143(2) initiates regular scrutiny assessment, the Department cannot subsequently resort to summary processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal quashed massive GST-related adjustments as being without jurisdiction.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 had been constituted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition and pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically because the taxpayer had earlier approached the High Court.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition and pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically since the taxpayer had approached the High Court earlier.
High Court held that taxpayers should not be denied an opportunity to seek revocation of cancelled GST registration merely because the online portal does not permit filing after limitation expiry.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition and pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically because the taxpayer had been pursuing remedy before the High Court.
Telangana High Court directed that no coercive GST recovery action should be taken if the taxpayer deposits 10% of the assessed tax liability within four weeks. The taxpayer was permitted to pursue second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
Telangana High Court directed that no coercive recovery action should be taken against the taxpayer if 10% of the assessed GST liability is deposited within the prescribed period.
