The Supreme Court stayed an Allahabad High Court judgment that held mere uploading of GST orders on the portal does not automatically start limitation for appeals. The dispute concerns the meaning of “communication” under Section 107 of the GST law.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to disclose the factual basis of the allegations. The ruling emphasizes the need for a meaningful opportunity to respond before adverse action is taken.
The Court held that toll collection rights granted under a BOT concession agreement amounted to consideration for works contract services. As a result, GST liability on the road construction arrangement was upheld.
The High Court held that an earlier CGST show cause notice involving overlapping entities could not be ignored. The State GST notice was directed to remain in abeyance pending adjudication by the CGST Authority.
The High Court directed the Tax Recovery Officer to decide the taxpayer’s pending objection after payment of arrear MV tax. It also restrained authorities from taking coercive recovery measures until the objection is adjudicated.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive because it was made contrary to the DRP’s binding directions. The assessment order was set aside to that extent.
The Tribunal held that a bank guarantee wrongly reported as a contingent liability in the tax audit report could not be added to income when it was not claimed as an expense. It directed deletion of the ₹9.41 lakh addition made on the basis of the reporting error.
The Court examined denial of ITC and penalty imposed for alleged delayed filing of returns. It held that the return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5) and directed reconsideration of the ITC claim.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening contained incorrect figures and unsupported assumptions. It held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that a trust’s application for regular registration could not be rejected solely because the wrong clause was selected in the prescribed form. It directed the authority to treat the application under the correct provision and decide it on merits.
