The court examined whether pre-deposit under Section 112 could be enforced when the GST Tribunal was not yet functional. It held that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit still applies and upheld the interim direction.
The court examined whether delay in filing a revised return caused by an audit reporting mistake and COVID-19 disruption should be condoned. It held that the explanation was bona fide and directed authorities to process the revised return afresh.
The issue was whether revision under section 263 could be invoked to deny 80P deduction on interest from co-operative bank deposits. The ITAT held that such revision is invalid when the AO has taken a legally settled and permissible view.
The case examined whether ITC can be blocked beyond the balance available in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A. The court held that such negative blocking is impermissible and restricted the blockage to the actual ledger balance.
The High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue issues already decided. In the absence of an error apparent on record, the review petition was dismissed.
The court examined whether a GST demand could exceed the amount proposed in a show-cause notice. It held that enhancement of demand violates Section 75(7) and set aside the assessment and appellate orders.
The Tribunal held that purchases supported by invoices, e-way bills, banking payments, and valid GST registration at the time of supply cannot be treated as bogus. Subsequent GST cancellation and non-response by suppliers were held insufficient to justify disallowance.
The High Court declined to adjudicate a GST demand challenge as a statutory appeal remedy was available. The petitioner was directed to approach the Appellate Authority within a fixed time.
Hyderabad ITAT held that even a delayed return filed during assessment is valid, and absence of mandatory Section 143(2) notice renders the entire assessment void.
The court examined whether reassessment for one year could be based on information from another year. It held that absence of foundational facts for the relevant year invalidates the notice.
