Taxpayers and professionals are facing multiple procedural doubts regarding GSTAT appeal filing requirements, including affidavits, annexures, pre-deposits, and paper books. The issues highlight lack of clarity in implementation of the GSTAT Rules and filing checklist.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST rectification order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to pass a reasoned order.
The Bombay High Court granted interim protection against recovery of GST penalty after the petitioner argued that liability could not be imposed merely because he was an employee.
The Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an income tax intimation under Section 143(1) because it was filed after more than five years. The Court held that extraordinary delay and laches made the writ petition not maintainable.
The Telangana High Court granted liberty to seek rectification after two separate GST orders were passed for the same tax period despite earlier proceedings having been dropped. The Court directed the competent authority to decide the rectification application after hearing the petitioner.
Income Tax authorities are increasingly reopening assessments involving political donation deductions claimed under Section 80GGC. Taxpayers are facing allegations that such donations were accommodation entries lacking genuine substance.
The Tribunal allowed service of notice through registered post and speed post after no response was received regarding verification of documents uploaded on the GST portal.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment based solely on search material seized from a third party must be initiated under Section 153C and not Sections 147/148. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment for lack of jurisdiction and absence of a mandatory satisfaction note.
The Kolkata ITAT held that advances received from flat purchasers in the ordinary course of a real-estate business cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal ruled that such advances were genuine business liabilities regularly adjusted against sales.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order could not be revised under Section 263 since the conditions for treating jewellery expenses as perquisite under Section 17(2) were not satisfied. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
