The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple assessment years was not valid. The matter was remanded with directions to issue separate proceedings for each assessment year.
The Madras High Court held that fresh proceedings under Sections 73, 74 or 74A can be initiated against legal heirs even if no proceedings were commenced during the deceased taxpayer’s lifetime. It ruled that Section 93 expressly authorizes determination of liability after death, subject to recovery being limited to the inherited estate.
CESTAT held that leasing vacant land prior to 1 July 2010 was outside the scope of “Renting of Immovable Property Service” under the then-existing law. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties except for the tax already collected and appropriated.
CESTAT held that although Customs rightly rejected the declared transaction value, the re-determination of value was invalid because Rule 8 was applied without following the mandatory sequential valuation rules. Only the duty demand relating to leather straps was sustained.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from unpaid business invoices was civil in nature and did not disclose the ingredients of offences under the IPC. The criminal proceedings against the directors were accordingly quashed.
The Madras High Court held that two GST assessment orders for the same assessment period were duplicative and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
CESTAT held that once shipping bills were assessed and Let Export Orders were issued, customs authorities could not subsequently modify those assessments without following the statutory remedies. The Tribunal consequently set aside the denial of DEPB benefits and related demands.
The Gujarat High Court held that Customs could not introduce new allegations and evidence through a corrigendum after the adjudication hearing had concluded. It directed the authority to decide the original show cause notice without considering the corrigendum.
Karnataka High Court set aside Order-in-Original after petitioner alleged that it was passed without service of notice or an opportunity of hearing. Matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
After ruling that the extended limitation period was invalidly invoked, CESTAT held that it was unnecessary to consider the substantive service tax and CENVAT credit issues. The appeals were allowed on limitation alone.
