The Supreme Court upheld the view that assignment of leasehold rights in industrial land is a transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. As a result, GST was held not applicable on the transaction.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GSTAT can grant interim stay against recovery proceedings even without an express statutory provision. The decision confirms that appellate powers inherently include powers necessary to make the appeal effective.
The Karnataka High Court held that the two-year limitation under Section 54 of the CGST Act is mandatory. However, it condoned a six-month delay through writ jurisdiction because double taxation was undisputed and directed processing of the refund.
The Telangana High Court held that the arrest was supported by material collected during the investigation indicating involvement in alleged GST evasion and online gaming operations. The Court found no illegality in the exercise of arrest powers under the CGST Act.
The Allahabad High Court held that service of a GST show cause notice solely through the common portal is insufficient once registration has been cancelled. The adjudication order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice.
The Court held that the dispute involved a pure legal question regarding composite versus mixed supply. Finding a prima facie jurisdictional issue, it ruled that the writ petition was maintainable.
The Tribunal ruled that disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was beyond the permissible scope of prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1). Relief was granted to the assessee.
The High Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax despite the address discrepancy in the invoice. It directed refund of the penalty collected from the petitioner.
The Court held that the proceedings should have been conducted under Section 129(1)(a) since the petitioner was the owner of the goods. The detention order was quashed and fresh action was directed on the basis of invoice valuation.
ITAT Delhi held that high sea sales could not be treated as non-genuine where customs approvals, sale agreements, and delivery records established the transactions. The Tribunal deleted the ₹59.11 crore addition and ruled that Section 68 could not apply to recovery of sale consideration.
