CESTAT Chennai held that lower authorities failed to comprehensively verify courier invoices, consignment notes and tax payment records before confirming service tax demand. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court set aside a Section 74 GST assessment order involving mismatch between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-7 returns in government contract transactions. The Court ordered fresh adjudication after noting that 23% of the disputed tax had already been recovered.
ITAT observed that Assessing Officer had treated jewellery sale proceeds as unexplained mainly because no wealth tax returns were filed. Tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination in light of supporting vouchers and legal precedents.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside anti-dumping duty demands after finding that WhatsApp chats, emails, and statements relied upon by Revenue were not authenticated under Section 138C of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that primary documentary evidence supporting Uzbekistan origin had not been disproved.
The Calcutta High Court directed GSTN authorities to carry out backend changes after the GST portal failed to process the taxpayer’s request to opt out of the QRMP Scheme. The Court permitted migration to monthly GST return filing from March 2026.
The Telangana High Court held that time spent pursuing a rectification application and writ proceedings may be considered while deciding delay condonation in a GST appeal. The Court permitted the assessee to approach the appellate authority on merits.
The Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that the seized loose paper referred to non-agricultural land rates recorded after the petitioner had already sold agricultural land. The Court held that reopening based on hypothetical assumptions and unrelated material was unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST adjudication orders after finding that no personal hearing was granted before passing adverse orders. The Court held that Section 75(4) requires hearing even if replies to notices were not filed.
The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Court held that Supreme Court precedent on mandatory satisfaction was binding on tax authorities.
ITAT Kolkata set aside the penalty order under Section 271D after the assessee claimed inadequate opportunity of hearing during penalty proceedings. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication and examination of supporting evidence.
