Court ruled that repayment of sums in cash violates Section 269T and attracts penalty under Section 271E, even when the same sums were treated as income under Section 68 in an earlier assessment.
The Calcutta High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration alone cannot justify denial of Input Tax Credit, requiring a reasoned evaluation of submitted documents.
The Bombay High Court quashed an order as the show-cause notice failed to specify date, time, and venue for personal hearing, violating Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court restored the proceedings for lawful adjudication.
The Court held that documents seized during a survey justified rejection of accounts and best judgment assessment. Partial relief granted by the Tribunal was found adequate, warranting no further interference.
The Court quashed an ex-parte GST order where the initial notice did not comply with procedural requirements, emphasizing proper reissuance of notice and lawful proceedings.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a GST refund appeal, finding the Appellate Authority miscalculated the limitation period. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with proper hearing.
Tribunal holds that providing online ticket booking services does not constitute trading; service provider can retain convenience fees and claim CENVAT credit on taxable services.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to file a fresh reply after initially failing to respond to a GST notice. Relief is conditional on depositing 50% of disputed tax, after which the authority must reconsider the matter.
The court held that a works contractor cannot challenge a GST assessment months after becoming aware of it, as a rectification application was already pending.
The Court ruled that deductions could not be denied when ST-15 forms were genuine though stolen, and the assessee had no role in the theft. It held that denying benefit would unjustly penalize the assessee despite compliance with statutory requirements.
