The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were ignored. The Court held that failure to consider the reply violated principles of natural justice.
High Court held that GST authorities must consider CBIC circular clarifying implementation of Section 16(5) before sustaining denial of input tax credit for delayed return filing.
NCLAT held that a joint venture arrangement did not prevent insolvency proceedings where separate agreements clearly imposed supply obligations and payment responsibilities between parties. Tribunal ruled that unpaid supply dues constituted operational debt under IBC.
The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice without physical signature remains valid when the name and designation of the Assessing Officer are clearly mentioned. The Court ruled that Section 282A(2) recognizes such authentication in the digital era.
Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an old email address, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subsequent years. The matter was remanded for verification because the assessee had not furnished complete creditor details.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported cold heading quality alloy steel products were classifiable as wire under CTH 7229 after undergoing cold drawing processes. The Tribunal ruled that denial of exemption and differential duty demand could not survive once the classification was found correct.
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational and timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism instead of writ proceedings.
