The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand based on delayed ITC claims after noting that Sections 16(5) and 16(6), inserted retrospectively, cured the defect relied upon in the proceedings.
The dispute concerns whether works contracts executed for the Delhi Jal Board attract GST at 12% or 18%. The High Court held that the legal issue regarding DJB’s status as a local authority requires consideration and stayed the show cause notice proceedings.
The dispute concerned whether deduction under Section 80IB should be reduced by the amount already allowed under Section 80HHC. ITAT held that deductions can be computed independently, provided the aggregate deduction does not exceed eligible profits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s delayed appeals warranted condonation in light of an earlier decision on similar facts. The appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were not properly considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST demand order, holding that the taxpayer should first avail the statutory appeal under Section 107. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226.
The Court observed that the authority rejected the refund claim without recording specific findings on the issues raised. The dispute was remanded for fresh examination and a speaking order.
While noting the delay in filing the writ petition, the Court entertained the challenge because the assessment orders lacked a DIN. The orders were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to a 43-day delay in filing. ITAT held that medical records substantiated the assessee’s health issues and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued on 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 exceeded the statutory ten-year limitation period. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
