The Supreme Court issued notice in a case concerning whether reimbursement paid to a municipal corporation for road restoration after electricity line work attracts GST under reverse charge mechanism.
The High Court held that investment-linked tax incentives under the 2012 industrial policy could continue unless specifically withdrawn or rescinded. The ruling directed authorities to reconsider the claim in light of Section 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hero Motocorp.
The High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the hearing notice was received by the taxpayer only after the hearing date. The Court held that denial of adequate opportunity violated principles of natural justice.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violated Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act and remanded the matter for separate year-wise proceedings.
Uttarakhand High Court directed refund of GST deducted on sale of rejected wheat and paddy seeds after noting that the goods were not sold in branded unit containers and GST liability was not disputed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained income since the amounts were recorded as sales turnover in the books and supported by VAT returns.
ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive verification of agricultural income and expenses. The Tribunal observed that detailed notices, documentary evidence, and independent inquiries were part of the original assessment proceedings.
ITAT Nagpur held that nominal donations received in small amounts could not be treated as non-voluntary contributions merely because PAN or full address details of donors were unavailable. The Tribunal found no adverse evidence questioning the genuineness of donations or activities.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make the same additions already annulled by the CIT(A). The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment order.
ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp duty value fell within the permissible tolerance band applicable retrospectively.
