The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the GST adjudication order on secondment of expatriate employees because relevant CBIC Circular No. 210/4/2024-GST and Instruction No. 05/2023-GST were issued after the order.
The Bombay High Court considered a challenge to a demand-cum-show cause notice on the ground that it was issued more than ten years after the alleged transaction. The Court issued notice to the respondents and permitted the petitioner to seek further relief if additional proceedings are initiated.
CESTAT Bangalore upheld the classification of dynamic braking assemblies and components under CETH 8607 as parts of railway locomotives. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s predominant or sole-use test and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal seeking classification under CETH 8414 and 8516.
ITAT Chennai held that reopening an assessment after four years based on issues already examined during scrutiny amounted to an impermissible change of opinion. The key takeaway is that reassessment cannot be used as a tool to review a concluded assessment without fresh tangible material.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order passed a day after an interim stay, accepting the State’s statement that the officer was unaware of the court’s order. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, with all legal issues kept open.
The Bombay High Court held that a provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act automatically ceases after one year. The Court directed de-freezing of the account, ruling that the attachment had lapsed by operation of law.
CESTAT Delhi set aside the refund rejection order after finding that issues relating to double payment of service tax and CENVAT credit eligibility required proper examination. The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to produce supporting evidence.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST refund rejection order after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to provide proper reasons or consider the taxpayer’s submissions. The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected through non-speaking orders passed without application of mind.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST rectification order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to pass a reasoned order.
The Bombay High Court granted interim protection against recovery of GST penalty after the petitioner argued that liability could not be imposed merely because he was an employee.
