A practical two-day GSTAT workshop equips professionals with drafting, presentation, and procedural skills to excel in GST appellate practice.
Delhi High Court holds that an extension of the six-month period to issue a show-cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act must be communicated before expiry of the initial period. Delay in issuance renders detention invalid.
The court held that goods supplied to an intermediary did not qualify for export duty exemption, affirming that factual findings by the Tribunal were correct.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of availing ineligible GST Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 6.09 crore. The court cited completed investigation, documentary evidence, and absence of custodial interrogation as grounds for bail.
The Court held that it was unreasonable to expect taxpayers to locate orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab and directed the delayed appeal to be heard on merits. The key takeaway is that delay caused by such portal-related issues must be condoned.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider ITC claims for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 under Section 16(5), emphasizing compliance with the October 8, 2024 notification.
The Court found prima facie computational mistakes in the demand relating to E-way bill and GSTR-1 differences and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after a 10% pre-deposit.
Court set aside an ex-parte GST demand after accepting that business closure caused non-response to notices. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with an opportunity to reply.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction in a case involving alleged fraudulent ITC, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The ruling reinforces that complex factual disputes must be addressed before the appellate authority.
Court sent the matter back to verify whether Section 73, not Section 74, should have been invoked, as the petitioner accepted tax liability but disputed penalty and extended limitation.
The Tribunal held that the revision was invalid because the assessment caused no loss to Revenue, as agricultural income was exempt and the Assessing Officer had made adequate inquiries. The order under section 263 was therefore set aside.
