The Allahabad High Court held that GST appellate authorities cannot dismiss appeals solely on limitation without examining the actual date of communication of orders. The Court ruled that the burden lies on the Revenue to rebut an assessee’s declared date of communication with cogent evidence.
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that proceedings arising from the same investigation and based on identical evidence could not be reopened after earlier orders had attained finality. The Tribunal upheld the order dropping the show cause notice.
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that preferential duty benefits under the Indo–Thailand FTA could not be denied by unilaterally rejecting a Certificate of Origin. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must follow the verification procedure prescribed under the Interim Rules of Origin.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a service tax order passed under the Finance Act, 1994 after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of an opportunity to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that consolidated approvals granted without application of mind under Section 153D were invalid. Consequently, the related assessment orders were declared void and quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that SAD refund cannot be denied when original files were misplaced by the department and substantive conditions stood satisfied. Procedural defects in reconstructed invoices were held insufficient to defeat refund entitlement.
The Delhi ITAT held that receipts from sale and restricted use of standard cybersecurity software could not be taxed as Fees for Technical Services. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents dealing with standardised technology offerings.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s ruling that reassessment under Section 147 lacked a valid basis. The courts found that the assessee had never claimed Section 10(38) exemption on the alleged penny stock gains.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order after finding that the reopening of assessment proceeded on incorrect facts regarding alleged exempt income from penny stock transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The Delhi ITAT held that reassessment notices issued beyond four years were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record the assessee’s alleged failure to make full and true disclosure. The addition relating to ₹13.10 crore share application money was consequently set aside.
