The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational, taxpayers must ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The writ petition challenging a refund-related appellate order was dismissed with liberty to approach GSTAT.
The Court held that a single show cause notice spanning different assessment years is legally unsustainable. Authorities were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each financial year.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order after the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal had lapsed. It held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass prescribed appellate remedies.
The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the alleged GST offence, involving liability below Rs. 5 crore, was non-cognizable under the GST framework. The applicant’s request for pre-arrest protection was accordingly dismissed.
Mumbai ITAT held that payments from accumulated income to institutions registered under Section 12AA attracted Section 11(3)(d). The Tribunal ruled that rectification under Section 154 was valid as the omission was a mistake apparent from the record.
The Telangana High Court dealt with the legality of issuing multiple show cause notices for the same tax period without adjudicating the earlier notice. The Court set aside the ex parte assessment order and directed a fresh adjudication after granting the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
The issue was whether a GST appeal filed within limitation could be dismissed merely because the mandatory pre-deposit was not made simultaneously with the appeal filing. The Telangana High Court held that such rejection was unjustified when the pre-deposit was subsequently made during the pendency of the appeal.
