The Karnataka High Court held that objections relating to an officer performing dual roles in audit and adjudication must be examined before merits are considered. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after jurisdictional findings.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments under Section 153C were invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction in terms of the amended statutory requirement. The Tribunal quashed the assessments for lack of proper jurisdictional compliance.
The ITAT Bangalore condoned a 28-day delay in filing appeal after accepting the assessee’s explanation regarding non-noticing of electronically communicated appellate order. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach.
The ITAT Rajkot reduced the addition on demonetization cash deposits after finding that the assessee had produced land records, cash flow statements, and other supporting evidence. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the disputed amount.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a GST demand order involving alleged misclassification of cargo transport services, holding that the petitioner should pursue statutory appellate remedies. The Court found no violation of natural justice.
Delhi High Court upheld the view that high-purity gold jewellery could not be absolutely confiscated merely because it fell within the category of primary gold. Redemption on payment of fine and duty was allowed.
Tribunal found that the assessee had paid applicable R&D cess on royalty and technical know-how fees and had maintained supporting records. Exemption equivalent to service tax liability was therefore allowed.
CESTAT held that sharing telecast rights of horse racing events with other clubs against downlinking charges amounted to commercial exploitation of events. Service tax demand for the post-2010 period was upheld.
The Madras High Court directed GST authorities to keep proceedings on seigniorage fee and royalty demands in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. The Court, however, required deposit of 10% of the disputed tax as security.
