Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to furnish supporting documents attached to the cancellation show cause notice after finding that the annexures were not supplied to the taxpayer. The Court held that the assessee must get a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken.
Both parties agreed that the dispute was governed by an earlier High Court order involving identical issues. Based on the consensus, the Court allowed the petitioner to seek rectification of the GST assessment order.
Telangana High Court directed the taxpayer to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand and granted protection from coercive recovery action until disposal of the second appeal by the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.
The ITAT Surat held that agricultural land qualifies as “immovable property” under Section 56(2)(x) since the provision covers “any land or building or both.” The Tribunal ruled that purchases below stamp duty valuation may attract tax on the differential amount.
Mumbai ITAT held that granting only seven days for compliance before dismissing an appeal violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the Section 69C addition matter for fresh adjudication after finding inadequate hearing opportunity.
Businesses now face stricter seller-wise tracking, PAN verification, and reconciliation obligations under TDS on purchase provisions. The article examines how MSMEs are gradually shifting toward automated compliance systems.
Correct configuration of GSTINs, ledgers, HSN codes, and vouchers in Tally allows businesses to generate portal-ready returns directly from accounting data. The article explains how this reduces repetitive Excel-based compliance work.
Mumbai ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band introduced under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is curative and retrospective in nature. The Tribunal deleted addition arising from stamp duty valuation difference as the variation was only 7.44%.
The article breaks down penalty provisions under Section 74A for fraud and non-fraud GST cases. It explains how penalties change depending on whether payment is made before intimation, after SCN, or after the demand order.
The judgment rejected the practice of assigning a nil arms length price merely because a taxpayer reported financial losses. The court emphasized that transfer pricing rules focus on pricing, not profitability.
