The Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration where the taxpayer undertook to furnish pending returns and pay tax, interest, penalty, and late fees in accordance with Rule 22(4).
The Delhi ITAT ruled that no installation or supervisory PE existed in India as the activities did not exceed the 120-day threshold under the India-Canada DTAA. Consequently, income attribution to the alleged PE was held to be unsustainable.
The ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271AAC could not be decided independently when the underlying assessment had already been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty issue was restored to the AO for reconsideration after completion of quantum proceedings.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal becomes operational, taxpayers must ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The writ petition challenging a refund-related appellate order was dismissed with liberty to approach GSTAT.
The Court held that a single show cause notice spanning different assessment years is legally unsustainable. Authorities were permitted to initiate fresh proceedings through separate notices for each financial year.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order after the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal had lapsed. It held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass prescribed appellate remedies.
The Tribunal observed that even in ex parte proceedings, the CIT(A) must adjudicate issues through a speaking order. The matter was remanded while directing the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT Delhi held that no notional rent could be charged for the period during which unsold commercial units remained stock-in-trade. Notional rent, if any, could be computed only after conversion into investment property, with statutory deductions also being available.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order rejecting anticipatory bail in a GST matter involving liability below ₹5 crore. The ruling reaffirmed that offences falling below the statutory threshold are treated as non-cognizable and bailable under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the alleged GST offence, involving liability below Rs. 5 crore, was non-cognizable under the GST framework. The applicant’s request for pre-arrest protection was accordingly dismissed.
