The Court invalidated the reassessment proceedings after finding the Section 148 notice to be barred by limitation. The ruling highlights that reassessment notices must strictly comply with statutory timelines.
Telangana High Court directed revenue authorities to process online applications filed through the Bhu Bharati portal for mutation and issuance of e-pattadar passbooks. The Court ordered authorities to decide the applications within 60 days after granting hearing to all concerned parties.
Telangana High Court held that grievances relating to multiple show cause notices and multiple assessment orders for the same tax period can be addressed through rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
The Court granted conditional relief in a GST dispute involving a 133-day delay in filing appeal proceedings. Recovery action was stayed subject to deposit of 10% of the assessed tax amount.
The High Court ruled that a transit State cannot impose GST penalties on goods merely passing through its territory when no tax liability arises there. The judgment clarifies limits on State GST powers in interstate transportation cases and protects taxpayers from multiple penalties across States.
Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to furnish supporting documents attached to the cancellation show cause notice after finding that the annexures were not supplied to the taxpayer. The Court held that the assessee must get a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken.
Both parties agreed that the dispute was governed by an earlier High Court order involving identical issues. Based on the consensus, the Court allowed the petitioner to seek rectification of the GST assessment order.
Telangana High Court directed the taxpayer to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand and granted protection from coercive recovery action until disposal of the second appeal by the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.
The ITAT Surat held that agricultural land qualifies as “immovable property” under Section 56(2)(x) since the provision covers “any land or building or both.” The Tribunal ruled that purchases below stamp duty valuation may attract tax on the differential amount.
Mumbai ITAT held that granting only seven days for compliance before dismissing an appeal violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the Section 69C addition matter for fresh adjudication after finding inadequate hearing opportunity.
