The Karnataka High Court quashed ex-parte GST adjudication orders after the taxpayer claimed it could explain discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The matters were remanded back for fresh consideration after granting an opportunity to reply.
The High Court held that summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act were valid and interference at the investigation stage would obstruct the ongoing inquiry into alleged fake ITC claims.
The Madras High Court directed removal of a bank account attachment after the purchaser reversed the disputed Input Tax Credit and proceedings against it were dropped. The Court, however, restrained the purchaser from making payments to the supplier pending resolution of related disputes.
The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
The ITAT Agra upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after finding that the Assessing Officer mechanically applied Rule 8D without recording reasons for dissatisfaction. The Tribunal reiterated that such satisfaction is mandatory before invoking Rule 8D.
Tribunal held that job work activities resulting in intermediate products do not attract reversal under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules when the final dutiable products are cleared on payment of excise duty. The appeal against the service tax demand was accordingly allowed.
The Tribunal held that a commercial trade discount given to a bulk buyer could not be added to assessable value without evidence of additional consideration. It ruled that the department failed to prove any free benefit flowing from the buyer to the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld findings that the arrangement allowing the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive 50% of PUFE recoveries was contrary to the IBC framework. The recoveries were held to constitute assets of the Corporate Debtor.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period could not be applied where the dispute involved interpretation of exemption and export provisions. Since all transactions were disclosed in books and returns, the demand was held time-barred.
The High Court held that the application seeking to set aside the auction sale was not legally maintainable. It upheld the DRAT’s decision restoring the Recovery Officer’s order and directed completion of the sale process.
