"A Blogger by Passion and a Chartered Accountant by Profession."
NCLT Indore held that dissolution under Section 54 of the IBC was justified after all assets of the corporate debtor were liquidated and proceeds distributed according to Section 53 priorities. The Tribunal found no remaining assets or pending proceedings.
The Rajasthan High Court held that refusal to hear the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice where cancellation of GST registration impacted business continuity and livelihood. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to condone the delay.
The Gauhati High Court held that a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act. The GST demand order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making a 10% purchase disallowance. The addition was deleted as it was based only on assumptions derived from portal data.
NCLT Mumbai held that ongoing One-Time Settlement discussions cannot defeat insolvency proceedings when debt and default are admitted. The Tribunal observed that the corporate debtor repeatedly failed to deposit the required upfront OTS amount.
The Kerala High Court held that although the earlier communication was not a Section 74 notice, the subsequent GST DRC-01 notice prima facie met statutory requirements. The Court directed the taxpayer to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
CESTAT Chennai held that strict transaction-wise correlation between factory clearances and retail sales was impractical in the jewellery business. The Tribunal allowed discount abatement based on consolidated sales data and Chartered Accountant certificates.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that retrospective GST cancellation is invalid where the show cause notice does not specifically propose such action or disclose its basis.
The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually execute infrastructure projects and bear the associated risks. The Tribunal ruled that the JV structure formed only for bidding does not defeat eligibility.
