The Delhi High Court held that consolidated show cause notices covering multiple years are permissible where fraudulent availment or utilisation of input tax credit is alleged.
The Madras High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible and must be issued separately for each financial year.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision annulling the assessment after finding that statutory approval under Section 153D was granted without proper application of mind.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT s ruling that assessment orders were invalid because the approving authority granted Section 153D approval mechanically without examining the records.
The Bombay High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings because the satisfaction note was recorded with delay and lacked a mandatory Document Identification Number.
The High Court held that provisional attachment of fixed deposits cannot be ordered without recording proper reasons and satisfaction based on tangible material. Since the orders were cryptic and lacked justification, they were set aside.
The High Court set aside GST registration cancellations because the show cause notices did not propose retrospective cancellation. Authorities must clearly notify taxpayers before taking such action.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine the profiteering computation after questions were raised about ignored cost increases, negative values, and supply channel considerations.
GSTAT concluded that elimination of entertainment tax and other levies reduced the effective tax incidence, requiring suppliers to pass on the benefit to subscribers.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of airlines jointly fixing cancellation charges were unsupported by evidence of any agreement or concerted action. As a result, no violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act was established and the complaint was dismissed.
