The Court set aside the refund rejection after finding that the appellate authority failed to record specific findings or provide adequate reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that a general penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act cannot be imposed when a specific late fee has already been levied. The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed payment of the applicable late fee.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain challenges to GST adjudication orders because a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. The Court held that disputed findings on service tax liability should be examined by the appellate authority.
The High Court condoned a 720-day delay in filing a GST appeal after finding that severe financial difficulties and circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control caused the delay. The appeal was directed to be heard on merits.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after noting that the entire disputed tax liability had already been recovered. The taxpayer was allowed to submit additional documents and explanations.
The Karnataka High Court set aside GST registration cancellation after finding that the taxpayer was in custody and unable to respond to the show cause notice. The Court held that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
The Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹2.32 lakh on 40 grams of gold bullion after granting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to relief considering the prescribed jewellery limits and supporting evidence.
ITAT held that substantive rights in the property arose through the allotment letter and payment of consideration. Therefore, the period of holding was to be counted from allotment, resulting in Long-Term Capital Gain treatment.
The Tribunal rejected the challenge to disallowance of delayed PF and ESI employee contributions, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. It, however, directed verification of the assessee’s refund claim.
The Court held that ITC could not be denied where returns were filed before the cut-off date specified under Section 16(5). It quashed the assessment orders and directed reconsideration of the claim.
