The Court addressed whether a second CGST demand could stand when the DGST had already raised a similar demand for the same period. It held that the petitioner may appeal the CGST order without additional pre-deposit because the earlier deposit covered the same amount.
The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to examine inventory-related documents before sustaining disallowance under section 37(1). The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence.
The Court held that the show cause notice provided less than seven days to respond, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The assessment and related notices were set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court ordered abeyance of recovery proceedings under a penalty order while the stay petition is considered, ensuring no enforcement until a decision is made.
The High Court refused to entertain the challenge to a sale notice, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists.
The Delhi High Court invalidated the retrospective cancellation of GST registration where the show cause notice did not contemplate retrospective action, ensuring a fresh hearing after re-inspection.
The Court noted that the GST-related allegation concerned only the firm’s proprietor, while the petitioners were merely agents. Anticipatory bail was granted with directions to surrender and comply with statutory conditions.
The Court dismissed the petition after holding that statutory remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act must be exhausted first. It allowed the petitioners to approach the DRT for their grievances.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition towards unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act upheld since assessee company failed to substantiate identity and creditworthiness of lender.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
