-Application for refund cannot be rejected as being deficient once it is accompanied with all the documents required under Rule 89(2) although proper officer can call for additional documents by issue of Notice in RFD-08

-Petitioner being a transporter can file an appeal against an order passed against him U/Sec 129(1)(a) even though payment for release of goods was made by owner but same was deducted from account of Petitioner

-Merely because petitioner did not appear on the hearing date, it cannot be presumed that he was not interested for hearing and even though he did not appear but the impugned order needs to consider reply to SCN as submitted

-Five heads including date by which reply is to be furnished and date, time and venue of hearing mentioned in this prescribed statutory form itself indicate that there are two stages, i.e. filing of reply and grant of personal hearing

-Time given for revenue to file reply however Court was of the view that any assessee who filed returns in GSTR-9/9C in respect of financial years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 before 31st August, 2023 should be eligible for concessional rate of late fee as prescribed in the said notification.

-A non-reasoned order asking the petitioner to furnish returns beyond the period when he has closed the business was unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

-Matter remanded back as none of the contentions as urged by the petitioner were recorded as also there was no discussion whatsoever on the issues as raised by the petitioner

– Petitioner company not entitled to avail ITC of GST trade on goods and services used for construction as per Section 17(5) (c) and (d) and ground of natural justice during adjudication proceedings not allowed to be raised in hearing since not part of grounds of appeal before appellate authority or petition before the Court

-Since SCN covered both pre-amended and post amended period for Rule 142(1A), therefore second authority after transfer of file should not have directly issued SCN in DRC01 and should have again issued intimation in DRC-01A since the first authority after issuing DRC-01A had not taken any action.

-Notice issued for issue regarding Taxability of Lease of Land in GST

-Section 29-Althugh SCN contained alleged reason for cancellation of registration but the order did not contain any reason, therefore the matter was set aside for officer to decide the matter again.

-No provision of the CGST Act, in terms of which the TRU could be said to have been clothed with the authority or jurisdiction to render a clarification with respect to classification of goods and articles

-Exemption provided by the Central Government by exercising its powers either U/Sec 11(1) of CGST Act, 2017 or U/Sec 6(1) of IGST Act, 2017 are substantive right provided to stakeholders and such exemptions cannot be taken away or done away by issuing clarificatory Circulars by the Board, in exercise of its powers under Section 168

-Penalty U/Sec 74 held to be justified since petitioner failed to discharge its onus to prove and establish beyond doubt the actual transaction, actual physical movement of goods as well as the genuineness of the transactions

-Revocation was cancelled registration not allowed as the order was a reasoned order and order passed based upon physical enquiry and discrepancies observed not properly explained by the petitioner

-Assessee is not required to request for “opportunity of personal hearing” and assessing authority bound to give the hearing even if petitioner may have signified ‘No’ in the column meant to mark assessee’s choice

-Officers had no power to seize cash under section 67 of the CGST Act

-On the direction of the court, Silver was released to the petitioner at the respondent’s office which was situated at fourth/fifth floor but was again seized at Ground Floor of building to over-reach the orders passed by the Court.

-Amended to the definition of relevant date from “end of financial year” to “due date for furnishing return” would be applicable to refund filed post 01/02/2019 to claim for refund in respect of returns filed consequent to that date and not to returns filed prior to the date of amendment

-Impugned letter allegedly issued for blocking of the Credit ledger, since called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation was held neither an order of attachment of ITC and nor notice U/Sec 74 as there was no mention of proceedings drawn U/Sec 74.

-Rejection of refund on account of fault of Customs department was improper as working of Customs was not under domain of petitioner and he shall not be penalised for irregularity from the side of customs department

– Petitioner cannot be compelled to deposit without following procedure under Section 73, 74 and 79

-Since reminder notice only contained the date by which reply is to be submitted and NA was mentioned at the date of hearing thus provisions of Section 75(4) have not been followed.

-Refund cannot be withheld only because as on today, department has not taken the decision whether to review the order-in-appeal or to file an appeal against the said order

-Cancellation order passed without providing any reason is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.

-Benefit of Circular for mismatch shall be accorded even though the benefit was not availed ta adjudication stage and matter might have travelled to appellate stage.