The Court held that cancellation of GST registration is justified where material indicates that ITC claims are supported by fabricated documents and fake invoices. The appeal against cancellation was dismissed.
The Bombay High Court set aside the GST cancellation order after finding that no reasons were recorded and no personal hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication following due process.
The Bombay High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 271-D cannot continue independently when the appeal against the underlying assessment order is pending before CIT(A). The Court directed that the penalty proceedings remain in abeyance until the appellate proceedings conclude.
The Madras High Court directed automatic lifting of bank attachment once the taxpayer deposited 25% of the disputed GST demand and paid the full late fee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanically on limitation grounds. The Court ruled that appellate authorities must examine whether sufficient cause for delay has been properly explained.
The Allahabad High Court held that adverse GST orders passed without granting personal hearing are procedurally invalid. The Court ruled that oral hearing under Section 75(4) is an independent statutory requirement.
The ITAT Ahmedabad restored reassessment proceedings after the assessee produced documents showing disputed property sales and pending civil litigation. The Tribunal held that additions relating to capital gains required fresh examination where sale transactions themselves were contested.
ITAT Nagpur held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive without issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal ruled that participation by the assessee does not cure complete absence of statutory notice.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 must comply with the amended limitation provisions under Section 149 effective from 01.09.2024. The Court quashed the notices as time-barred due to absence of material showing escaped income above Rs. 50 lakh.
The ITAT Visakhapatnam held that an inadvertent withdrawal of the penalty appeal instead of the quantum appeal did not defeat settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and treated the appeal as withdrawn.
