The Tribunal held that deposits received from members of a registered cooperative society cannot be treated as unexplained credits when supported by books and member-wise records.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that expenses already disallowed by the assessee were again disallowed during processing, resulting in double addition. The issue was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order for FY 2019-20, holding that the benefit of Circular No.183/15/2022-GST cannot be denied where identical errors exist. Authorities were directed to reconsider the matter under applicable GST Circulars.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting the petitioner’s explanation of financial and health difficulties. However, restoration was made conditional upon filing pending returns and restricting ITC utilization until departmental scrutiny.
The High Court set aside a Section 63 GST assessment passed against an unregistered contractor after authorities admitted confusion caused by identical names and incorrect reliance on WAMIS data.
The Supreme Court permitted the Revenue to approach the High Court with a clarification effective from 01.04.2021. It kept all issues open after the High Court had quashed reassessment notices for lack of faceless procedure.
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
The Appellate Tribunal held that no further contempt proceedings were warranted over 2023 publications. It noted the delay and pendency of related civil proceedings before the High Court.
The Court held that Rule 86A does not permit blocking ITC beyond the credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Creation of a negative balance was declared unsustainable.
The High Court quashed a decades-old TDS prosecution after compounding fees and interest were fully paid. It held that revival of trial violated the right to a speedy trial and constituted abuse of process.
