| September 26, 2024 |
Department must consider/resolve the petitioner’s objections filed u/r Rule 159 within a reasonable timeframe, to prevent the rule from becoming a mere formality: Rajasthan High Court |
| September 25, 2024 |
Government’s failure to obtain a recommendation from the GST Council before issuing notification rendered the extension of time limits legally untenable: Gauhati High Court |
| September 24, 2024 |
No notification was issued u/s 168A to extend the limitation period for the financial year 2018-19, Order passed beyond such limitation period is without jurisdiction: Gauhati High Court |
| September 18, 2024 |
Re-attachment order passed u/s 83 without any fresh justification, is arbitrary: Allahabad High Court |
| September 10, 2024 |
GST Act does not allow for the transfer of proceedings from one proper officer to another without explicit legal provisions |
| September 5, 2024 |
Deemed improper to reject the appeal on the grounds that the penalty alone could not be contested |
| August 29, 2024 |
Directed department to consider rectification petition filed for error in GSTR-1, before initiating recovery measures – Madras High Court |
| August 27, 2024 |
Proceedings u/s 129 leading penalty order not sustainable, where e-way bill incorrectly mentions ‘Place of Delivery’ due to a human error – Allahabad High Court |
| August 22, 2024 |
Original Refund application date to be considered for the purpose of determining the limitation period, and not the subsequent rectified application date: Gujarat High Court |
| August 20, 2024 |
Without a valid underlying order, any recovery action based on a summary order is legally unsustainable: Gujarat High Court |
