The Tribunal held that denial of TDS credit solely on mismatch grounds requires factual verification. The Assessing Officer must examine whether the individuals in whose names TDS was deducted have already claimed the credit.
Issue involved whether adjudication fails if cross-examination under Section 138B is not provided. The Court held that cross-examination is mandatory only when specifically sought, and the Tribunal erred by presuming a violation without deciding this factual issue.
The Court held that GST exemption under the 2025 notification applies only to individual health insurance policies. Group policies obtained through collective bargaining were ruled ineligible for exemption.
The court declined to interfere with GST registration cancellation where the taxpayer failed to reply to a show-cause notice, holding that revocation must be sought before the Proper Officer under Section 30. Liberty was granted to apply for revocation within the statutory framework.
Delhi High Court held that an employee cannot be denied TDS credit due to the employer’s default in depositing deducted tax. The related demand and recovery were quashed.
The court addressed a demand arising from automated processing that led to double disallowance of expenses. It directed rectification through an amended return and stayed recovery until correction.
Kerala High Court upheld a Section 73 notice where the dealer challenged rejection of TRAN-1 after more than two years. Delay and portal service were held fatal to the case.
The Court held that an assessment passed without personal hearing was unsustainable even though notices were uploaded on the GST portal. The matter was remanded subject to partial payment of disputed tax.
The Court held that GST dues of a company under liquidation cannot be directly recovered from directors. Liability arises only if statutory conditions under Section 88 are satisfied.
The Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter after noting the statutory amendment allowing ITC for earlier years. The authority must reconsider the case in light of Section 16(5) and CBIC clarification.
