The High Court upheld the ITAT’s restriction of disallowance to 6% of alleged bogus purchases, holding that similar issues involving the same accommodation entry group had already been decided in earlier cases.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that no under-reporting of income existed where the income declared in the return filed under Section 148 was accepted without any addition. The penalty under Section 270A was deleted.
The Madras High Court held that a Section 74 order could remain in abeyance where a second appeal could not be filed due to a GST portal glitch. The Court directed the appeal to be taken on file and left the issue of Section 74 applicability open.
The dispute concerned denial of 67% abatement on construction and works contract services involving supply of materials. CESTAT held that substantive tax benefits cannot be refused solely due to failure to claim them in ST-3 returns. The Service Tax demand and related penalty were consequently set aside.
The dispute concerned whether importers lose their right to contest enhanced valuation after submitting consent letters during customs clearance. CESTAT held that written acceptance does not extinguish the statutory right to challenge reassessment.
The Delhi High Court held that RTI replies showing tax return filings and bank entries did not establish that specific payments were accounted for in taxable income. As a result, no ground existed to review the earlier dismissal of the writ petition.
The High Court held that portal-only service of a show cause notice after GST registration cancellation violated natural justice. The tax order was quashed, with liberty granted to issue a proper notice.
The Court rejected the challenge to arrest legality after finding that written grounds of arrest were furnished and acknowledged by the accused. Bail was denied considering the prima facie evidence and magnitude of the alleged fake ITC fraud.
The Delhi High Court held that GST registration could not be cancelled retrospectively when the show cause notice did not indicate such action. The order was quashed as it travelled beyond the scope of the notice.
The Rajasthan High Court held that proceedings cannot be initiated against a person who has already expired. The notices were quashed, with liberty granted to the Department to proceed in accordance with law against legal representatives.
