The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
CESTAT Mumbai held that computer printouts and email records could not be relied upon for customs duty demands because statutory requirements under Section 138C of the Customs Act were not followed.
The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capital gains purposes. It therefore directed taxation in AY 2018-19 and allowed the Section 54 claim.
The High Court ruled that absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders GST assessment orders legally defective. It held that such defects cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of a DIN number rendered the GST assessment order invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
The Court dismissed a plea seeking refund of GST penalty paid during detention of goods, observing that the taxpayer had made payment without protest and had not pursued the statutory appellate remedy.
ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Delhi ITAT held that Dividend Distribution Tax paid on dividends to non-resident shareholders could be restricted to the treaty rate under applicable DTAAs. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court ruling that DDT is, in substance, a tax on shareholder dividend income.
The Tribunal held that invocation of the five-year limitation period requires proof of deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, which was absent in the case.
