Gujarat High Court upheld confiscation proceedings under Section 130 after noting that goods were transported without an e-way bill and penalty had been voluntarily paid without protest.
Delhi ITAT held that reassessment beyond four years is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to record how the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts. The Tribunal quashed the reopening for violating the first proviso to Section 147.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST recovery proceedings under Section 79 can be initiated against a bank after an assessment order becomes final and remains unpaid. The Court ruled that no separate pre-recovery notice to the dealer is required under the provision.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation was allowable for assessment years prior to AY 2021-22. The Tribunal ruled that amendments excluding goodwill from depreciable assets operate prospectively.
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
Kerala High Court ruled that authorities must determine both whether the payment amounts to a supply under Section 7(1) and whether exemption provisions apply. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that revision under Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the PCIT desires deeper investigation after detailed assessment scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined all major issues through extensive enquiries and documentation.
High Court ruled that a GST order could not survive where SCN did not specify date, time, or venue for personal hearing. Judgment reaffirmed mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of CGST Act.
Tribunal ruled that reimbursable expenses such as freight, warehousing, and terminal handling charges were not liable to service tax. Decision followed Supreme Court judgment declaring Rule 5(1) beyond scope of Sections 66 and 67 of Finance Act.
Patna HC refused to interfere with GST proceedings after taxpayer’s representative admitted liability towards interest and penalty during personal hearing. Court held that petitioner could not later take a contradictory stand in writ proceedings.
