The High Court set aside GST refund rejection orders after noting that Rule 96(10) was omitted without saving pending proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that inability to trace proof of dispatch of hearing notices does not automatically establish denial of personal hearing, especially in ITC fraud cases.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
The court found a prima facie overlap between excess ITC due to non-reconciliation and ITC disallowed under Section 16(4), directing partial pre-deposit and fresh adjudication.
The High Court found prima facie overlap between two assessment proceedings for the same tax period. The demand was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a reply.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST orders as they were based solely on Rule 96(10), which was omitted without a saving clause, and remanded no further action under that rule.
The Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The Court restored GST registration after accepting that non-filing of returns for six months was caused by genuine illness and financial constraints. Restoration was granted subject to strict compliance conditions.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank had duly served, published, and affixed the sale notice as required under Rule 8(6). It ruled that the DRT erred in cancelling the auction despite full statutory compliance.
The appellate tribunal upheld the award of 9% interest on refund to an auction purchaser, holding that statutory violations by the bank’s authorised officer justified compensation despite a no-interest clause.
