SC declined to interfere where High Court refused writ in alleged bogus ITC case, holding factual disputes must be examined in appeal under Section 107 with pre-deposit.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition in a case alleging fraudulent ITC through bogus firms, holding that complex factual disputes must be examined in statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Court granted interim relief after noting absence of proof that mandatory approval under Section 151 was served on the assessee. It held that the petitioner had made out an arguable case warranting stay of the Section 148 notice.
The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant FTC, observing that denial on technical grounds would amount to unjust enrichment.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside a differential IGST demand, holding that CBIC’s beneficial circular clarifying 12% GST on poultry machinery parts applies retrospectively. The Tribunal ruled that payment at the lower rate stands regularised for the past period.
The Court held that cooperation with investigation does not require an accused to incriminate himself. Finding no need for custodial interrogation, it granted anticipatory bail subject to continued cooperation.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration, noting it was based solely on non-filing of returns for six months. The Court granted the taxpayer four weeks to file returns and clear dues for restoration.
The Court held that there is no provision for deducting GST, incentive advance, or festival advance from retiral dues and directed full payment without deductions.
The ITAT relied on orders under section 148A(d) for subsequent years where reopening was dropped, holding the assessee to be a local authority. The earlier additions for unexplained investment and interest income were set aside.
Holding that GST registration is not confined to individual districts, the Court ruled that the eligibility condition lacked rational nexus with procurement objectives. The clause was struck down as unconstitutional.
