The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a writ petition was not maintainable where the assessee failed to file a timely statutory appeal and did not comply with the mandatory GST pre-deposit requirement. The Court also noted that notices uploaded on the GST portal could not be ignored.
Karnataka High Court held that GST proceedings initiated for FY 2021-22 were without jurisdiction because the Joint Commissioner lacked valid authority to assign proceedings beyond the permitted period.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order quashing a GST demand passed under Section 73 due to violation of natural justice. The High Court held that granting less than one effective working day to respond to voluminous documents was not a meaningful hearing.
Ahmedabad ITAT held that cost of improvement could not be disallowed solely because suppliers’ VAT registrations were later cancelled retrospectively. The Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of supporting purchase and transportation documents.
The Supreme Court held that n-Hexane could not be classified as motor spirit under Chapter 27 merely because its flash point was below 25°C. The Revenue failed to prove that the imported product was suitable for use in spark ignition engines.
The Tribunal noted that an adjustment under Section 35(1)(iv), already dropped during CPC processing, was later included in assessment computation without fresh notice to the assessee.
Mumbai ITAT held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be made where expenditure remains part of work-in-progress and is not claimed in the profit and loss account. The Tribunal upheld adjustment of WIP instead of direct addition to income.
Agra ITAT held that the bank was liable under Section 201 for non-deduction of TDS on LFC involving foreign travel because no branch-specific interim judicial order was produced. The Tribunal distinguished earlier rulings that had granted relief based on specific High Court directions.
The Rajasthan High Court held that a GST penalty order without a DIN was still valid because it contained a verifiable Reference Number (RFN) retrievable through the GST portal. The Court ruled that portal upload, email, and postal service satisfied statutory communication requirements.
The Court ruled that absence of quantified interest and penalty in a GST show cause notice does not by itself invalidate proceedings under the CGST Act. Taxpayers were directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead.
