Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in FORM GST REG-19 was illegal and violated statutory requirements. The Court restored the matter and granted the taxpayer fresh opportunity to respond.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
The Madras High Court quashed prosecution under Sections 276CC and 278B after finding that the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant assessment year. The Court relied on Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
The Tribunal referred to HSN notes stating that Chapter 9616 does not cover dispersing appliances falling under Chapter 8424. Based on this reasoning, the imported soap dispenser was classified under CTI 8424 89 90.
Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation were void ab initio. The Court quashed the demand order passed in the name of the amalgamating entity.
High Court directed authorities to examine claims relating to additional road work, carriage charges, GST differential, and deductions from running bills. The Court refrained from deciding the merits and ordered consideration of pending representations.
The Tribunal held that tax authorities cannot reject documentary evidence solely by labeling the explanation as an afterthought. Proper verification and rebuttal of evidence are necessary before sustaining additions under Section 69A.
ITAT Bangalore dismissed the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide adequate reasons for delayed filing. The Tribunal ruled that routine official workload could not justify condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court observed that payments made while search proceedings are continuing may not automatically qualify as voluntary deposits. Court granted tax authorities an opportunity to take corrective steps if refund entitlement exists.
