The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer was given less than one effective working day to respond to additional queries. The Court held that such truncated timelines violated principles of natural justice.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the taxpayer’s request to treat an earlier court-ordered deposit as statutory pre-deposit for GST appeals. The issue arose due to changes in the GST portal architecture and appeal filing process.
The Bombay High Court held that State GST authorities could not initiate parallel proceedings and attach bank accounts when Central GST authorities were already investigating the same alleged ITC liability.
The Gujarat High Court held that a taxpayers selection of No for personal hearing in Form DRC-06 cannot override the mandatory requirement under Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The Court quashed the order passed without granting personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court held that a second provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained when there is no change in circumstances. The Court ruled that repeated attachment orders after expiry of the first order violate the statutory safeguard under Section 83(2).
The Karnataka High Court quashed ex-parte GST adjudication orders after the taxpayer claimed it could explain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The matters were remanded back for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity to reply.
The High Court held that summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act were valid and interference at the investigation stage would obstruct the ongoing inquiry into alleged fake ITC claims.
The Madras High Court directed removal of a bank account attachment after the purchaser reversed the disputed Input Tax Credit and proceedings against it were dropped. The Court, however, restrained the purchaser from making payments to the supplier pending resolution of related disputes.
The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
The ITAT Agra upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording reasons for dissatisfaction. The Tribunal reiterated that such satisfaction is mandatory before invoking Rule 8D.
