The High Court examined a tax demand arising from ITC mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It held that authorities must follow the reconciliation procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular before adjudication. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal examined a demand based on discrepancies between ITR data and service tax returns. It held that verification of tax payment under RCM by the recipient was necessary before confirming liability.
The Court examined whether authorities can continue blocking ITC beyond the statutory period. It held that restrictions automatically lapse after one year under Rule 86A(3). The blocking was set aside as it exceeded the permissible duration.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek stay of recovery by complying with CBIC circular requirements. It held that filing an undertaking and making pre-deposit enables protection from recovery. The key takeaway is that statutory conditions must be fulfilled to avail recovery relief.
The case addressed whether a 247-day delay in filing an appeal could be condoned due to pandemic-related disruptions. The Court condoned the delay citing exceptional circumstances and directed adjudication on merits.
The case examined denial of credit on GTA services for outward transportation. The Tribunal held that FOR delivery terms made the buyer’s premises the place of removal, allowing credit.
The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The Tribunal allowed concessional duty on imported goods after noting that earlier decisions in identical matters had already settled the issue. It held that reliance on a set-aside order was unsustainable. The key takeaway is that binding precedents must be followed, and overturned orders cannot be relied upon.
The High Court set aside demand orders after confirming that the Input Tax Credit had been reversed prior to issuance of the show cause notice. It held that this fact required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of loss based on alleged penny stock manipulation was not justified without corroborative evidence. It found that transactions were supported by demat and banking records.
