Delhi High Court held that Indian Institution providing educational consultation to students in India and Foreign Educational Institution paying commission thereof cannot be considered as intermediary service. Accordingly, writ petition of revenue dismissed.
Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a single, composite GST show cause notice or assessment order covering multiple financial years is impermissible under the GST Act. The court set aside the orders and directed authorities to initiate fresh, year-specific proceedings.
Delhi High Court admitted petitions challenging GST Notification No. 40/2021, which petitioners argue violates Article 14 and Section 164 of the GST Acts. The court ordered interim protection, directing that no coercive steps be taken until the next hearing.
The Mumbai ITAT partly allowed Trustar Diamond’s appeal, reducing the addition on alleged bogus diamond purchases from 12.5% to 3% to maintain consistency with the assessee’s previous assessment years. The court noted that sales figures were accepted and the 3% restriction reflected the historical disallowance pattern.
Allahabad High Court applied the doctrine of comity to quash a GST appellate order, directing a fresh decision in line with the un-appealed Bombay High Court judgment on the definition of service ‘recipient’ under the IGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
The Madras High Court reserved petitioners’ right to claim a tax refund, agreeing to defer the decision until the Supreme Court rules on the SLP challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sal Steels Limited. The Revenue cited conflicting rulings from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts as grounds for delay.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
Rajasthan High Court modifies bail condition with regard to foreign travel to petitioner involved in alleged tax evasion of Rs. 8.75 crores. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad with prior information taking note of no flight risk.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
