The High Court quashed the GST cancellation proceedings after finding that the show cause notice did not specify the alleged contraventions or shortcomings. The Court held that absence of material particulars violated the prescribed procedure under GST law.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Tribunal ruled that additions proposed by CPC under Section 143(1)(a) ceased to survive after the Assessing Officer deleted them in the final scrutiny assessment order. As a result, further appeals relating to the original intimation became infructuous.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer’s detailed reply and supporting documents were not considered before passing the order. The Court directed fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.
ROC Chennai held that an Additional Director who was not regularised at the AGM could not be treated as an officer in default during the violation period. The ruling highlights the importance of director status while fixing liability under the Companies Act.
The Tribunal ruled that an assessee following mercantile accounting must offer interest income to tax on accrual basis, irrespective of delayed receipt. Failure to disclose the full accrued amount in the relevant year justified reassessment and addition.
The Calcutta High Court permitted withdrawal of appeals after noting that the constitutional validity issue had already been settled. The Court allowed the appellant to pursue fresh appeals on merits before the appellate authority.
The ITAT Delhi ruled that reimbursement of software costs to foreign AEs on a cost-to-cost basis could not be treated as a profit-generating intra-group service. The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment after finding the benchmarking method adopted by the TPO unjustified.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that once a partnership firm is penalized under customs law, a separate penalty on its partner for the same contravention cannot be imposed in absence of specific statutory provision.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
