The Tripura High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding prima facie non-compliance with section 169 of the CGST Act regarding service of the adjudication order.
Bombay High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without proper hearing and a reasoned order. The Court quashed the cancellation and revocation rejection orders for violating principles of natural justice.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 10 for claiming accumulation under Section 11(2) should be condoned where genuine hardship exists. The Court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach to protect charitable exemption claims.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST order involving alleged wrongful ITC availment of over ₹17.67 crore because the adjudicating authority failed to consider an audit report relied upon by the petitioner.
Bombay High Court held that transitional CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because ST-3 returns were filed late. The Court emphasized that substantive credit eligibility must be examined based on actual tax payment evidence.
CESTAT held that hiring dredgers under bareboat charter agreements amounts to transfer of right to use goods and therefore cannot be taxed as supply of tangible goods service. The Tribunal quashed the entire service tax demand raised on reverse charge basis.
The issue was failure to pass a final assessment order after DRP directions within the statutory timeline. The Court held the assessment invalid and time-barred, quashing the proceedings.
The issue was whether seat adjustment components qualify as seat parts or auto parts. CESTAT held they are integral seat parts under CTI 9401, overturning reclassification and duty demand.
The issue concerns whether startups can sell regulated products without BIS certification. It is established that certification is mandatory under QCOs, and non-compliance can lead to penalties, bans, or closure.
The Tribunal held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proving intent to evade tax. Since no fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement was established, the demand was time-barred. The key takeaway is that limitation cannot be stretched merely due to audit findings.
