The Tribunal held that disallowance of 20% of total purchases was unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had accepted sales, stock records, and quantitative details. Mere non-service of notices under Section 133(6) could not justify treating all purchases as bogus.
ITAT found that the taxpayer’s foreign investment was funded through disclosed banking channels and tax-paid funds. Since there was no deliberate concealment, the penalty was deleted.
The High Court set aside the GST demand for fresh adjudication after finding that the authorities had not properly examined stock records, GSTR filings, and transitional credit claims before confirming the demand.
ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 could not survive where the Section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices were barred by limitation and the resulting reassessment was void.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that various disputed services qualified as input services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal ruled that services having a direct or indirect connection with manufacturing were eligible for Cenvat credit.
The Tribunal admitted the insolvency petition after finding sufficient evidence of a subsisting financial debt and default in repayment exceeding the statutory threshold under the IBC.
The Court set aside the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 after the petitioner agreed to furnish a ₹1.5 crore fixed deposit. It held that the revenue’s interests could be safeguarded through the deposit while allowing the petitioner to continue business operations.
The Court set aside a Section 73 order after finding a violation of natural justice. It held that after cancellation of registration, mere uploading of a notice on the GST portal was insufficient.
The Orissa High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional, the taxpayer should pursue the statutory appeal remedy. The Court directed compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) before filing the appeal.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the 90-day period prescribed under Section 101(2) for deciding GST advance ruling appeals is directory and does not cause automatic lapse of proceedings. The Court allowed departmental appeals to proceed on merits.
