The Court granted interim protection against coercive recovery proceedings after the petitioner argued that the revisional order was passed beyond the three-year statutory limitation period under the CGST Act.
The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Revenue appeals challenging banks’ eligibility for CENVAT credit on service tax paid for deposit insurance premium. The Court held that the issue already stood concluded by earlier Kerala and Bombay High Court rulings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
The Supreme Court held that once final GST assessment orders had been passed, the assessee must pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act. The Court allowed the issue of missing seized files to be raised before the appellate authority.
Gauhati High Court ruled that electricity regulatory functions and adjudicatory powers form part of a single statutory framework and cannot be split for taxation purposes. The Court held that attempts to classify such functions as support services were unsustainable.
Court restrained the department from taking coercive steps until the petitioner filed the statutory appeal. The order was passed in a case involving challenge to a GST adjudication order.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an appellate order rejecting a GST appeal after finding that no reasons had been recorded for refusing condonation of delay. The Court held that the order reflected non-application of mind and restored the appeal.
The Kolkata ITAT deleted an addition against an employees gratuity fund after finding that gratuity payments were higher than the interest income earned during the year. The Tribunal held that excess expenditure over income meant no taxable addition could survive.
The Delhi High Court set aside a GST demand order as it was passed after the mandatory five-year limitation period. The court held that orders issued beyond Section 74(10) are without jurisdiction and cannot survive.
