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.
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.
