Calcutta HC emphasized that uploading GST orders and proceedings on the official portal constitutes valid service under Section 169. Writ petition challenging the order without pursuing alternate remedies was dismissed with costs.
The court held that an impugned GST order was not properly uploaded under the “view notices and orders” tab, affecting the petitioner’s ability to respond. HC directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice with proper service and timeline for reply.
ITAT Chennai rules that the Section 54 capital gains deduction cannot be denied solely because sale proceeds weren’t deposited in CGAS before the return deadline, provided the amount is used within three years.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST summary demand order in Form DRC-07 is invalid if the mandatory show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 was not issued first, even if a preliminary notice (DRC-01A) was sent.
Kerala High Court recalls its 2024 order after finding petitioner’s GST refund plea was wrongly linked to a batch case challenging Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act.
Madras High Court compels Assistant Commissioner (CT) to refund ₹1.14 Cr in excess VAT paid by Madhucon Projects for AY 2008-09, upholding the Single Judge’s order.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a search assessment (Sec. 153A) because a search was never physically conducted on the assessee’s premises, ruling that a mere mention in a panchnama is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that an assessment under Sec. 153A is void ab initio if an actual search on the person or property of the assessee is not initiated and conducted.
Delhi HC dismissed a writ challenging a ₹6.27 Cr GST demand, noting the firm’s two-year lifespan suggested fraudulent ITC intent. Court directed the firm to pursue the Section 107 statutory appeal.
ITAT condones 498-day delay & remands case for de novo assessment, ruling that a mere mistaken capital gains declaration by a previous representative doesn’t create tax liability. AO must verify if actual property transfer occurred, as documents show no sale.
NCLAT held that small disputed amounts below ₹1 crore do not justify Section 7 proceedings or penalties under Section 65 when debt is substantially repaid.
