CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding no error in the adjudicating authority’s order, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The High Court held that closing the Income Tax portal before the granted response deadline denied the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity. It restored the assessment proceedings and directed the authorities to enable document upload.
The Karnataka High Court allowed withdrawal of the writ petition and granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple assessment years was not valid. The matter was remanded with directions to issue separate proceedings for each assessment year.
The Madras High Court held that fresh proceedings under Sections 73, 74 or 74A can be initiated against legal heirs even if no proceedings were commenced during the deceased taxpayer’s lifetime. It ruled that Section 93 expressly authorizes determination of liability after death, subject to recovery being limited to the inherited estate.
CESTAT held that leasing vacant land prior to 1 July 2010 was outside the scope of “Renting of Immovable Property Service” under the then-existing law. The Tribunal set aside the demand and penalties except for the tax already collected and appropriated.
CESTAT held that although Customs rightly rejected the declared transaction value, the re-determination of value was invalid because Rule 8 was applied without following the mandatory sequential valuation rules. Only the duty demand relating to leather straps was sustained.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from unpaid business invoices was civil in nature and did not disclose the ingredients of offences under the IPC. The criminal proceedings against the directors were accordingly quashed.
The Madras High Court held that two GST assessment orders for the same assessment period were duplicative and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
CESTAT held that once shipping bills were assessed and Let Export Orders were issued, customs authorities could not subsequently modify those assessments without following the statutory remedies. The Tribunal consequently set aside the denial of DEPB benefits and related demands.
