The Court held that merely uploading an order on the GST portal is not sufficient communication under Section 107. Limitation begins only after proper service under Section 169 is established.
The Bombay High Court ruled that legal services provided by an advocate to a partnership firm of advocates are exempt under service tax notifications. The tax demand and recovery proceedings were therefore set aside.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that refund of accumulated ITC under Section 54(3)(ii) cannot be denied merely because the input and output supplies are identical. The Court clarified that the law does not require comparison of principal input and output tax rates.
The High Court held that Section 94 of the BNSS only allows authorities to call for documents and does not empower police to freeze bank accounts. Since the account was frozen without proper statutory authority, the action was declared illegal.
The Gujarat High Court set aside detention proceedings after finding unexplained delay in uploading FORM GST MOV-09 and denial of personal hearing. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with Section 129(3) timelines and Rule 142(5).
Tripura HC held ITC cannot be denied under Section 16(2)(c) if buyer is bona fide and no fraud is alleged under Section 73 proceedings. Court ruled GST ITC cannot be denied to genuine purchasers merely due to supplier’s tax default absent fraud or collusion.
Observing that the charge-sheet had been filed and the maximum punishment under Section 132 was five years, the Court granted bail. It relied on Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that prolonged incarceration and documentary evidence weigh in favour of release.
The Calcutta High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding it was based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. The ruling reinforces that Section 75(7) prohibits confirmation of demand on new or different grounds without prior notice.
The High Court held that invocation of Section 74 is invalid where the show cause notice lacks specific allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Without recorded findings of mens rea, proceedings are without jurisdiction.
CESTAT Delhi ruled that subscription and redemption of mutual fund units do not constitute trading under Section 66D(e) of the Finance Act. As units are cancelled upon redemption and not transferred, no CENVAT credit reversal or extended limitation applies.
