The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 13.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year 2018-19.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that continuation of order of attachment and Garnishee impermissible since petitioner has preferred an appeal against the assessment order and has paid 10% of the disputed tax as required under section 107 of the CGST Act.
The petitioners prays that directions be issued to the respondents to refund an amount of ₹22,00,000/-, which the petitioners claim that they were coerced to deposit during the course of search conducted by the respondents.
Madras High Court held that matter regarding denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s. 16(4) of the CGST Act is remanded back in terms of Clauses 114 and 146 of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2024 and enacted in the Finance Act, 2024.
Madras High Court held that imposition of interest for belated filing of GSTR-3B return without affording sufficient opportunity is unjustifiable and hence the order set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that co-operative society is entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act for funds deposited in co-operative banks. Accordingly, action of AO set aside.
Madras High Court held that issuance of two different orders for same Assessment Year is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, order set aside and matter remanded back.
Gauhati High Court held that Explanation inserted to section 14A vide the Finance Act, 2022 is applicable prospectively and order holding that the said insertion is clarificatory and hence retrospective in nature is erroneous.
Delhi High Court held that fee in respect of credit card being issued by foreign branches would not be taxable in India since amount payable by those card holders would clearly be debt incurred outside India.
ITAT Bangalore held that granting an opportunity to cross examine essential when addition is made on the basis of 3rd party statements. Non-granting any opportunity of cross examination violates the principle of natural which vitiates the validity of addition.
