The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the taxpayer filed pending returns and undertook to pay applicable tax, interest, late fees, and penalties. The ruling reiterates that eligible taxpayers may seek relief under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.
The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits and restricted market competition. The ruling directs them to cease such anti-competitive practices.
The Tribunal held that procurement strategy, supplier oversight, and sourcing support formed part of a substantive procurement service. Since these services were provided on the supplier’s own account, refund of IGST was denied.
The High Court granted bail in a POCSO case after noting that the victim did not support the prosecution story in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The Court also considered the filing of the charge sheet and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the original customer. The Tribunal allowed the credit and ordered refund of the demand.
The Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was sent back to the tax authorities for a fresh decision on merits.
The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 notices were not considered. The Court directed a 10% pre-deposit and mandated reconsideration on merits.
The Tribunal observed that payment of licence fees for exclusive use of demarcated spaces amounted to renting of immovable property. Consequently, the transaction attracted forward charge provisions rather than reverse charge liability.
CESTAT held NHAI’s transfer of toll collection rights to contractors was a taxable service, not a sovereign function, and upheld service tax demand.
ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business purposes. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
