The High Court found prima facie merit in the challenge to a state reimbursement clause restricting ITC. Show cause notices seeking reversal of ITC were stayed pending further hearing.
The issue was whether higher remittances made later could alter the transaction value declared at import. The Tribunal held that customs duty must be determined at the time of import, rendering the differential demand unsustainable.
The court clarified that exemption notifications must be applied as issued and cannot be altered by importing supposed intent. Any attempt to add or curtail benefits retrospectively was held to be beyond legislative delegation.
The Tribunal held that when closing stock is revalued under Section 145A to include tax components, opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis. The case was remanded to ensure consistent valuation and accurate profit computation.
The High Court held that a show cause notice lacking factual details cannot sustain cancellation of GST registration. The cancellation order was set aside and fresh opportunity was granted to the taxpayer.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued after three years was time-barred under section 149. Since the ₹50 lakh exception did not apply, the reassessment was invalid.
The Tribunal held that reopening an assessment on a recurring issue already decided in favour of the taxpayer by the High Court is invalid. Pending appeal before the Supreme Court cannot justify reassessment.
The case concerned a challenge to VAT enforcement on liquor retail shops. The Court ruled that statutory tax requirements cannot be stayed when the law itself is not under challenge.
The High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction where allegations of fraudulent ITC involved complex facts. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The High Court held that GST demands for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan cannot survive. All such claims stand extinguished once the plan is finally approved.
