NCLT Mumbai held that ongoing One-Time Settlement discussions cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when debt and default are admitted. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor repeatedly failed to deposit the required upfront OTS amount.
The Kerala High Court held that although the earlier communication was not a Section 74 notice, the subsequent GST DRC-01 notice prima facie met statutory requirements. The Court directed the taxpayer to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
CESTAT Chennai held that strict transaction-wise correlation between factory clearances and retail sales was impractical in the jewellery business. The Tribunal allowed discount abatement based on consolidated sales data and Chartered Accountant certificates.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that retrospective GST cancellation is invalid where the show cause notice does not specifically propose such action or disclose its basis.
The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
CESTAT Mumbai held that computer printouts and email records could not be relied upon for customs duty demands because statutory requirements under Section 138C of the Customs Act were not followed.
The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capital gains purposes. It therefore directed taxation in AY 2018-19 and allowed the Section 54 claim.
The High Court ruled that absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders GST assessment orders legally defective. It held that such defects cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of a DIN number rendered the GST assessment order invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
