The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that TTD qualifies as both a Governmental Authority and Governmental Entity under GST notifications. Assessment and appellate orders denying concessional GST benefits were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside retrospective cancellation of GST registration because the taxpayer was not informed through a show cause notice that such retrospective action was proposed. The Court held that authorities must clearly disclose the grounds and basis for proposed cancellation.
The Gujarat High Court held that arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was valid as the petitioner had been supplied with the “reasons to believe” and grounds of arrest. The Court ruled that verbatim signed copies were not mandatory.
Patna High Court ruled that recovered GST amounts should be returned to the taxpayer after withdrawal of the assessment order. The dispute related to tax demand issued through Form GST DRC-07.
The Gauhati High Court held that the petitioner could pursue all grounds before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act. Since the statutory remedy remained available, the writ petition was not entertained.
The Court held that mere email communication blocking ITC without a formal order and recorded reasons contravened Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. The blocked input tax credit was directed to be released.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the benefit of Section 115BAA could not be denied when Form 10-IC was filed within the period permitted under CBDT Circulars. The Court ruled that procedural delay could not defeat a clearly exercised tax option.
The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra payment. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of on-money beyond the registered sale deed value.
The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was recovered. The reassessment notices were set aside for lack of nexus.
The Court held that a document dated 2017 could not reasonably be linked to a land transaction executed in 2021 without supporting evidence. The absence of a live nexus rendered the reassessment invalid.
