The Madras High Court held that passing an ex parte GST assessment order without granting personal hearing was unsustainable. The matter was remanded subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court held that voluntary cancellation of GST registration does not wipe out liabilities for earlier tax periods. It upheld tax and penalty imposed for 2018-19 due to non-response to notices.
The Court held that clubbing multiple tax periods in one composite show cause notice under Section 74 is illegal. All consequential orders and proceedings were set aside with liberty for fresh action.
The Tribunal held that where the AO had examined and accepted exemption on interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, revision under Section 263 was not justified.
The Court granted ad-interim relief, holding prima facie that no under-reporting arose where deduction was claimed based on a binding High Court judgment later overruled. Coercive recovery was stayed.
The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier did not file an income tax return. Verified GST filings and inventory records established transaction genuineness.
The AAR held that Dry Citrate Powder used in haemodialysis is not an instrument or apparatus under Chapter 90. It was classified under HSN 29181590 as an organic chemical, attracting 18% GST.
The Gujarat AAR held that an IIM established by Parliament is a specified person under Section 51 due to substantial Central Government control. TDS must be deducted when contract value exceeds ₹2.5 lakh.
The Tribunal held that additional ITC benefits under GST were not passed on to homebuyers across three projects. The builder must refund ₹98.72 lakh with interest under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to recompute the profiteered amount after noting that only the services component of the ₹89 crore pre-GST value was considered. A revised report under Rule 133(2A) must be filed within one month.
