The Karnataka High Court held that consolidating multiple financial years into a single show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings.
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The ITAT Kolkata held that revision under Section 263 was invalid where the Assessing Officer had already examined service tax liability and depreciation claims during assessment. The order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
SC directed completion of investigation within three months, ordering bail if probe is not concluded. The ruling balances prolonged custody against seriousness of allegations.
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail in a case involving alleged GST fraud of ₹74 crores through 555 fake firms. The Court held that the seriousness of allegations outweighed the plea for release.
The appellate authority held that the advance ruling was declared non-maintainable due to absence of invoices and supporting records. As fresh documents were produced in appeal, the matter was remanded for fresh examination on merits.
The Authority held that consultancy services for a fire station and parking project were pure services provided to a local authority. Since they relate to municipal functions under Article 243W, the supply was declared GST-exempt.
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Section 171 does not apply where the housing project began and was executed fully after GST implementation. It accepted the DGAPs finding of no profiteering and closed proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after verifying that the developer passed on ITC benefits exceeding the computed liability. With the balance amount paid, no further action was required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition in limine does not result in merger of the High Court judgment. A review petition before the High Court remains maintainable unless leave to appeal has been granted.
