The High Court set aside the rejection of GST registration revocation, holding that Rule 23 permits filing within 270 days. It ruled that the authority wrongly rejected the application on delay grounds and directed reconsideration after hearing the taxpayer.
The High Court held that GST revocation cannot be denied solely due to portal time limits where genuine hardship exists. It directed the authority to accept a manual application and decide the matter on merits within a fixed timeframe.
GST registration was cancelled for six months of non-filing of returns, and the taxpayer was unable to apply for revocation due to portal time limits. The High Court directed acceptance of a physical application and ordered a decision within three weeks.
The relocation did not lead to structural enhancement of business assets. The Tribunal ruled that such expenses remain in the revenue field. The decision distinguishes between operational and capital expenditure.
The Tribunal accepted the delay caused by representative’s illness as sufficient reason and admitted the appeal. It found that the authority failed to properly assess genuineness of activities. The matter was restored for fresh adjudication.
The case addresses the continued failure to release ITR utilities on time despite earlier court directions. The Court adjourned the matter after CBDT failed to file a required affidavit, highlighting ongoing compliance gaps.
The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that interest on tax arrears is compensatory, not penal. It ruled that such interest qualifies as a deductible business expense.
The Tribunal held that excess stock found during survey had direct nexus with business operations. It ruled that such income should be taxed as business income, not as unexplained investment under special provisions.
The Tribunal held that absence of a clear charge in the penalty notice makes the proceedings invalid. It ruled that failure to specify the exact limb of misreporting renders the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that prior to the 2023 amendment, returns filed within the broader time under Section 139 were eligible for exemption. It ruled that updated returns could not be denied benefits retrospectively.
