The Gujarat AAR held that fusible interlining fabrics of cotton are classifiable under Chapter 52 and not Chapter 59. The ruling followed Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court decisions confirming that partially coated fabrics do not fall under Chapter 5903.
Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a single, composite GST show cause notice or assessment order covering multiple financial years is impermissible under the GST Act. The court set aside the orders and directed authorities to initiate fresh, year-specific proceedings.
Delhi High Court admitted petitions challenging GST Notification No. 40/2021, which petitioners argue violates Article 14 and Section 164 of the GST Acts. The court ordered interim protection, directing that no coercive steps be taken until the next hearing.
The Mumbai ITAT partly allowed Trustar Diamond’s appeal, reducing the addition on alleged bogus diamond purchases from 12.5% to 3% to maintain consistency with the assessee’s previous assessment years. The court noted that sales figures were accepted and the 3% restriction reflected the historical disallowance pattern.
Allahabad High Court applied the doctrine of comity to quash a GST appellate order, directing a fresh decision in line with the un-appealed Bombay High Court judgment on the definition of service ‘recipient’ under the IGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
The Madras High Court reserved petitioners’ right to claim a tax refund, agreeing to defer the decision until the Supreme Court rules on the SLP challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sal Steels Limited. The Revenue cited conflicting rulings from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts as grounds for delay.
Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2014–15 were time-barred and quashed notices and orders issued under Sections 148 and 148A.
ITAT Delhi emphasized that Revenue must present convincing evidence of fraud or economic substance absence to deny DTAA benefits, following Delhi HC guidance in Tiger Global International.
Tribunal confirmed that incomplete construction does not cancel a transfer under section 2(47)(vi). The matter was remanded for proper computation of capital gains considering partial project completion.
