The High Court set aside a GST demand order after observing that the adjudicating authority did not examine the taxpayer’s detailed reply and issued only generic conclusions. The ruling emphasized that adjudicating authorities must discuss submissions and provide clear reasons before confirming tax and penalty demands.
The Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting that the taxpayer’s failure to file returns for six months was due to mental stress and physical illness.
The High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed when late fee is already levied under GST law. The court therefore removed the penalty while confirming the late fee liability.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings must follow proper procedure when the assessee is deceased. The tax authority must issue notice to the legal representative before initiating proceedings.
The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that a claim for refund of money deposited under a commercial plot allotment scheme arises from contractual obligations. Such disputes must be pursued before a civil court and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court held that GST circulars issued in 2022 cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims when the taxpayer’s right to claim refund had already accrued and the application was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after noting that the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The ruling reiterates that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
The High Court quashed the appellate order rejecting a GST appeal on the ground of manual filing. The Court held that once the authority accepted the appeal and heard it on merits, it could not dismiss it later on a technical ground.
The Tribunal found merit in the respondent’s argument that ITC comparison should be based on identical goods and services and directed DGAP to re-investigate.
