The case addressed whether multiple financial years can be combined in a single show cause notice under GST law. The Court held such consolidation impermissible, emphasizing that each financial year is a separate tax period.
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
The case examined the legality of imposing both late fee and general penalty for the same default. The Court ruled that such overlapping penalties are unjustified and unsustainable. The decision clarifies that only one penal consequence can be applied in such cases.
The case dealt with disallowance of employee contributions deposited beyond statutory due dates. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh examination of how “due date” should be determined, emphasizing factual verification and legal interpretation.
The case addressed disallowance of employee contributions deposited beyond prescribed timelines. The Tribunal upheld the legal position but directed verification of actual compliance with statutory due dates.
The case examined whether delayed employee contributions could be disallowed under Section 143(1). The Tribunal held such adjustments invalid on debatable issues and ordered deletion of the addition.
The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable issues cannot be adjusted under Section 143(1) and deleted the addition.
The case involved disallowance of employee contributions during return processing. The Tribunal held such adjustments invalid on debatable issues and directed deletion of additions.
This article explains how manipulating input tax credit in GSTR-3B without GSTR-2B support is treated as fraud under GST law. It highlights the risk of cancellation, tax recovery, and prosecution for taxpayers and professionals involved.
The Tribunal held that unsigned sanction for reopening invalidates the entire reassessment. It ruled that absence of signature violates mandatory legal requirements under tax law.
