The Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory duties under Sections 250(4) and 250(6). The dismissal on delay alone was held improper, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
When a scheduled video hearing under faceless assessment is not attended by the officer, the opportunity becomes illusory. The key takeaway: document the failure immediately to protect natural justice rights.
The Tribunal ruled that Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be used to penalize deduction under an incorrect TDS provision when tax was actually deducted. The expenditure disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Bombay High Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple financial years is impermissible. The ruling emphasizes that limitation and assessment under GST operate year-wise.
The analysis confirms that export of legal services qualifies as zero-rated supply under Section 16 of the IGST Act. Refund of unutilised ITC cannot be denied merely because domestic legal services attract RCM.
The new law consolidates all TDS provisions into a single structured section with three tables for residents, non-residents, and specified payments. Compliance shifts from section-based to table-code reporting.
The Supreme Court held that refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act is not payable to the applicant if tax incidence was passed on. The amount must be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
The Tribunal observed that similar deductions were allowed in earlier scrutiny assessments. Finding no error in the Assessing Officer’s view, it annulled the revision proceedings.
Relying on CBDT instructions and precedent, the Tribunal ruled that approval for reopening must come from the CCIT. Approval by PCIT rendered the notice and assessment unsustainable.
The AAR held that shaving foam and shaving cream are distinct products based on composition, packaging, and market understanding. Shaving foam falls under HSN 33071090 and attracts 18% GST.
