The Court held that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively unless the show cause notice clearly proposes such action. Orders exceeding the scope of the notice are legally unsustainable.
The Court held that retrospective cancellation requires clear justification and cannot be applied mechanically. In absence of reasons, the effective date was revised to the show cause notice date.
AI Adil Trader Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court) The Telangana High Court examined the validity of a show cause notice dated 01.11.2024 and a consequential order cancelling GST registration dated 16.01.2025, both challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective as it failed […]
The High Court quashed a service tax demand passed ex parte without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the show cause notice stage.
The Tribunal held that demand based solely on Form 26AS and ITR data without corroboration is unsustainable. It set aside the entire tax demand along with penalties and interest.
The Tribunal examined whether loans for non-agricultural purposes disqualify a co-operative society from deduction under Section 80P. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it held that such loans do not bar deduction. The ruling clarifies that credit facilities to members need not be limited to agricultural purposes.
The High Court examined a tax demand arising from ITC mismatches between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. It held that authorities must follow the reconciliation procedure prescribed under CBIC Circular before adjudication. The case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal examined a demand based on discrepancies between ITR data and service tax returns. It held that verification of tax payment under RCM by the recipient was necessary before confirming liability.
The Court examined whether authorities can continue blocking ITC beyond the statutory period. It held that restrictions automatically lapse after one year under Rule 86A(3). The blocking was set aside as it exceeded the permissible duration.
The Court allowed the taxpayer to seek stay of recovery by complying with CBIC circular requirements. It held that filing an undertaking and making pre-deposit enables protection from recovery. The key takeaway is that statutory conditions must be fulfilled to avail recovery relief.
