ITAT Mumbai ruled that once reassessment proceedings are quashed as void ab initio, the satisfaction recorded therein for initiating penalty proceedings cannot survive independently. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Jaya Lakshmi Rice Mills.
The Madras High Court held that membership fees received for long-term time-share agreements could not be fully taxed in the first year because the assessee had continuing obligations to provide facilities over 99 years.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings initiated under an incorrect and obsolete PAN suffered from a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal ruled that failure to consider the assessee’s reply under Section 148A invalidated the reassessment proceedings.
ITAT Delhi deleted transfer pricing adjustments after holding that retail and after-sales businesses could not be compared with wholesale trading to OEMs. The Tribunal ruled that comparables must satisfy functional and market similarity under Rule 10B(2).
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration is justified where material indicates that ITC claims are supported by fabricated documents and fake invoices. The appeal against cancellation was dismissed.
The Bombay High Court set aside the GST cancellation order after finding that no reasons were recorded and no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following due process.
The Bombay High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 271-D cannot continue independently when the appeal against the underlying assessment order is pending before CIT(A). The Court directed that the penalty proceedings remain in abeyance until the appellate proceedings conclude.
The Madras High Court directed automatic lifting of bank attachment once the taxpayer deposited 25% of the disputed GST demand and paid the full late fee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanically on limitation grounds. The Court ruled that appellate authorities must examine whether sufficient cause for delay has been properly explained.
The Allahabad High Court held that adverse GST orders passed without granting personal hearing are procedurally invalid. The Court ruled that oral hearing under Section 75(4) is an independent statutory requirement.
