The service tax demand arose from differences between income tax records and ST-3 returns. The Tribunal ruled that Form 26AS, which formed the basis of the investigation, required proper evaluation before confirming liability.
The Supreme Court declined to examine the Revenue’s challenge after noting that an intra-court appeal remedy existed under the Karnataka High Court Act. The merits of the assessment dispute were left open.
The High Court held that the statutory requirement of issuing a draft assessment order could not be bypassed by issuing a final order accompanied by tax demand and penalty proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a 200% GST penalty imposed for transport of goods with an expired e-way bill. Considering the brief 50-minute delay beyond the extension window and absence of any allegation of tax evasion, the Court substituted the penalty with a token fine of Rs. 10,000.
he Tribunal held that accepted on-money receipts from earlier years could partly explain cash deposits made during the demonetisation period. It granted telescoping relief for 50% of the disputed addition under Section 68.
The ITAT Delhi held that LTCG exemption could not be denied merely because the shares were classified as a penny stock. The addition was deleted as the Revenue failed to produce evidence linking the assessee to price rigging, entry operators, or manipulation activities.
The challenge concerns provisions inserted into the Haryana GST Act and a subsequent executive order dealing with collection of entry tax. The Court found that the matter raises important questions regarding legislative competence.
The Tribunal found no merit in Customs’ objections relating to classification, labelling and port restrictions for the purpose of provisional release. The appeal was dismissed and release of the goods was ordered.
The Kerala High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
The Court found the underlying consolidated notice legally defective and consequently quashed the corresponding GST order while preserving the department’s right to initiate fresh action.
