The Tribunal ruled that Service Tax cannot be levied merely on reimbursement figures taken from accounts without evidence of a taxable service. Reimbursement of Convention expenses was held outside the tax net.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated by a jurisdictional Assessing Officer were without authority after introduction of the faceless scheme. All notices, assessment orders, and demands were set aside on jurisdictional grounds.
The High Court set aside a GST demand raised without a personal hearing and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, noting that the validity of limitation-extension notifications is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled that Central tax proceedings should not continue while a related State tax appeal remains undecided. Central authorities were permitted to act only after conclusion of the State appellate proceedings.
The High Court remanded the matter after holding that the taxpayer was denied a fair hearing when the show cause notice and order were not properly communicated. Fresh adjudication was directed after granting an opportunity to reply.
The High Court stayed GST demands on co-insurance transactions after noting they were challenged as contrary to binding CBIC circulars, granting interim relief pending replies.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and made operational. Petitioners were permitted to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.
The High Court invalidated a GST assessment order after finding it was issued without the assessing officer’s signature. It held that an unsigned order is legally unsustainable and requires fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that transport services cannot be taxed as GTA without proof of consignment notes. It ruled that, in the absence of statutory documents, the freight-related Service Tax demand was unsustainable.
The High Court set aside reassessment orders holding that non-issuance of a mandatory draft assessment order under Section 144C invalidated the proceedings. It ruled that Section 263 remand does not override statutory safeguards.
