Rejecting the petitioner’s request to keep recovery in abeyance, the Madras HC directed the assessee to comply with the mandatory 20% pre-deposit for AY 2019-2020. Failure to pay will result in the initiation of coercive recovery measures.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST show-cause notice and assessment order, ruling them invalid due to the mandatory absence of a DIN. The Tax Department must conduct a fresh assessment after assigning a DIN.
Reassessment based on a new Permanent Establishment (PE) ground, which was absent from the initial notice, was quashed by the Delhi High Court. The court ruled that tax authorities must adhere strictly to the grounds stated in the statutory notice.
ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal of MLS Enterprises for statistical purposes, subject to a ₹10,000 cost, restoring the matter to the CIT(A). The central issue is the prospective nature of the Section 234E penalty levied under Section 200A.
The ITAT sent a tax assessment case back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, citing the assessee’s claim of DIN absence in the assessment order. The appellate authority must now adjudicate on both the merits and the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 compliance.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail to a partner of Universal Enterprises accused of GST evasion. The court noted substantial investigation was over and imposed conditions for release.
The ITAT Dehradun set aside a penalty under Section 270A, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause of misreporting invoked. The penalty was declared invalid and deleted.
The High Court set aside the GST Department’s order attaching payments due to a contractor, holding that no reasons or legal provisions were cited. The Court emphasized compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on provisional attachment.
The Jodhpur ITAT set aside a ₹ 8.13 lakh expense disallowance against Sarvodaya Mining Services. The Tribunal ruled additions cannot be made unless the assessee’s books of account are first rejected under Section 145.
Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions without examining whether the trust followed a cash or accrual accounting system. The matter was remanded for de novo verification to ensure fair assessment under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
