The High Court set aside GST orders where the show cause notice was served only on the portal after cancellation of registration, holding that principles of natural justice were violated.
The appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of enforcement proceedings after finding violations in service of possession and sale notices, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory rules.
The appellate tribunal held that staying recovery proceedings through a SARFAESI application was without jurisdiction when an alternative appeal remedy under the RDDBFI Act was available.
The court ruled that depositing money does not convert a non-bailable GST offence into a bailable one, yet upheld bail considering custody, punishment limits, and surrounding circumstances.
The court held that an appeal refiled within the CBIC amnesty period could not be dismissed on limitation. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.
The court held that Section 74 of the CGST Act does not permit consolidated show cause notices for multiple financial years. Notices clubbing different tax periods were therefore set aside.
The court held that a refund claim cannot be denied solely due to technical issues on the GST portal when substantive conditions are met. Authorities were directed to process the refund on merits.
The case involved a Section 263 revision alleging failure to make additions after reopening. The Tribunal ruled that once the AO conducts enquiry and takes a conscious decision, revision is impermissible.
The appeal was dismissed as the assessee had already offered the disputed income to tax at 30%. The ruling clarifies that reassessment cannot survive when there is no loss of revenue or escaped income.
The High Court held that statutory authorities must mandatorily refer exemption claims under the Building Tax Act to the Government. Orders denying exemption without such reference were set aside.
