Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under GST Section 130 are not permissible against a registered dealer; actions should have been initiated under Sections 73/74.
The Court held that the first refund application filed in 2018 stopped the limitation period and that subsequent filings after deficiency memos were a continuation, making the refund claim timely.
The Court accepted a previously rejected Form F worth ₹6.29 crore after verifying its authenticity. It held that genuine branch transfer claims cannot be denied solely for delayed production.
ITAT Delhi held that the addition of Rs. 73,99,475 as LTCG under Section 10(38) was unjustified, as the assessee provided complete evidence and no direct link to alleged bogus transactions was established.
In December 2025, India witnessed one of the most chaotic aviation disruptions in recent memory when IndiGo—India’s largest airline by market share—suddenly plunged into operational disorder. What began as a set of minor delays quickly escalated into a full-blown national aviation crisis, with more than 1,000 flights cancelled, thousands stranded across airports, regulatory intervention, political […]
The Court held that leasing a residential building used as a hostel for students and professionals falls within “renting of residential dwelling for use as residence.” It ruled that GST exemption applies even if the lessee does not personally reside there.
Because differing judicial views existed on taxation of co-operative society interest income, the AO’s accepted position could not be termed erroneous. The Tribunal ruled that debatable issues cannot trigger section 263 revision.
GSTAT upheld a profiteered amount of ₹4,57,683 but ruled that interest and penalty do not apply as the relevant CGST Rule amendments are prospective.
The High Court held that a show cause order passed ex parte before the expiry of the response period violated natural justice. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication with proper hearing.
The Tribunal held that confiscation of all seized betel nuts was unjustified, as only a documented portion belonged to the appellants. Revenue was directed to release 150 kgs fit for consumption.
