A practical two-day GSTAT workshop equips professionals with drafting, presentation, and procedural skills to excel in GST appellate practice.
The High Court set aside a GST order against Sanjay Medicos, granting the petitioner time to reply to the SCN and a personal hearing, while leaving notification validity to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Form 9A was not applicable to Assessment Year 2015–16 and that the option under Section 11(1) had been validly exercised through Form 10B and the return. The rejection order was quashed.
Tribunal held that ₹15 crore received for withdrawing a civil suit was not consideration for transfer of a capital asset. It ruled that the assessee only gave up a right to sue, which is not taxable as capital gains.
The Tribunal held that section 13(1)(b) did not apply to a trust formed before 1961 and directed grant of registration. The key issue was whether activities for a Scheduled Caste community invalidated the application.
The Court held that pre-deposits and amounts recovered during investigations must be verified before issuing SVLDRS-3. The decision emphasizes the committee’s duty to ensure accurate calculation under the Scheme.
The Court granted bail to an accused in a cement supply fraud case, noting pre-trial incarceration cannot substitute for punishment. The decision considers documentary evidence and completed investigation.
The Court held that brief delays in producing documents during transit do not constitute grounds for a Section 48(5) VAT penalty, setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that arrears of a deceased employee must be taxed only in the legal heir’s representative capacity. The assessment made solely in individual capacity was deleted.
The Tribunal directed fresh examination of whether the government allocation received by the assessee constituted a corpus fund under section 11(1)(d). It held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the assessee’s submissions, requiring the matter to be verified afresh.
The Court held that vehicles were detained and penalty collected without any seizure or adjudication order. It directed refund and allowed authorities to issue a proper show cause notice.
