The issue concerned cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and rejection of appeal as time-barred. The High Court restored the registration after noting that all returns were filed and dues paid.
The High Court declined to interfere with GST registration cancellation where the statutory appeal was filed fifteen months late. The ruling reiterates that limitation bars relief when delays are unexplained in pleadings.
The Court rejected the argument that goodwill payments amounted to prohibited fee sharing and dismissed the Revenue’s appeals.
Noting that exemption was allowed in multiple subsequent years on identical facts, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s stand. The addition and denial of exemption were accordingly set aside.
Court issued notice after allegations that enrolment rules were bypassed through paid oral interviews, and sought an explanation from the State Bar Council.
In the absence of any stay or reversal of an earlier binding order, the Tribunal followed settled precedent. Penalties imposed on co-noticees were therefore set aside along with the impugned order.
The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹45.36 crore GST demand after the Finance Ministry clarified that Section 86 of the CGST Act imposes joint liability only for goods, not services. The ruling confirms that agents cannot be taxed for services supplied by the principal without statutory backing.
The Bombay High Court stayed the entire tax demand after finding that authorities taxed gross receipts without deducting expenditure. The ruling reiterates that only real income can be brought to tax.
The ITAT held that taxing only TDS credit, while leaving the underlying undisclosed commission untaxed, is a patent error. Section 263 revision was rightly invoked to protect revenue.
The ITAT held that revision under Section 263 was invalid because the Assessing Officer had conducted detailed enquiries into goodwill depreciation. A plausible view taken after scrutiny cannot be branded as erroneous.
