Focusing only on receivables can miss significant risks embedded in related-party payables. A bilateral review reveals internal group funding structures, offsetting balances, and potential drawing power distortions.
The Supreme Court refused to bypass the statutory GST appeal mechanism and directed the taxpayer to pursue appellate remedies. However, it preserved the constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(c), leaving the ITC controversy unresolved.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a single GST show cause notice can cover multiple financial years under Section 74. The case arises from a Kerala High Court ruling that such consolidation prejudices taxpayers and violates the statutory scheme.
The appellate authority had rejected the exemption claim on limitation grounds, but ITAT held that the assessee’s explanation regarding bond availability warranted verification. The case was sent back to the Assessing Officer.
Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC’s jurisdiction. However, rectification under section 154 enhancing income without complying with section 154(3) was quashed.
The Informant alleged unfair subscription cancellation and service deficiencies by an AI platform. The CCI held that the matter was essentially a dispute between the parties and did not raise competition law concerns under Section 4.
The Court held that a typographical error in the tax period mentioned in the DRC-01 notice did not invalidate the proceedings because the relevant invoices were clearly identified. However, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply.
The Court held that shares acquired in a buy-back are mandatorily extinguished under company law and therefore cannot be treated as property received by the company. Section 56(2)(x) was found inapplicable to such transactions.
Section 54(3) permits refund of unutilised ITC for zero-rated supplies and inverted duty structures. The key takeaway is that refund entitlement flows from the statute and cannot be curtailed beyond prescribed exclusions.
The Gauhati High Court granted bail in an NDPS case, holding that the petitioner’s GSTIN appearing in e-way bills was the primary material against him. The Court found no evidence of dealings with consignors, co-accused, or any other material linking him to the alleged trafficking operation.
