The J&K High Court set aside a GST demand of ₹15.44 Lakh, ruling that authorities must consider a taxpayer’s reply to a Show Cause Notice if received before the final assessment order is passed.
ITAT Chandigarh ruled that a CIT(A) order is not void simply because it names the deceased assessee. The Tribunal restored the case, directing the CIT(A) to admit evidence due to the assessee’s prior illness.
The Allahabad High Court stayed a ₹110 Cr GST demand on Dabur India’s Hajmola Candy, citing a Supreme Court precedent that previously settled the product’s classification issue.
ITAT Pune upheld CIT(A)’s order restricting Hawala purchase additions to 15%, ruling that a typographical error does not warrant full disallowance.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nippon Tubes Limited, ruling that the detention of goods was justified because the movement of materials to a job worker lacked the mandatory GST delivery challan (Rule 55) and e-way bill, despite the existence of a master tax invoice.
Madras High Court rules on GST notice service via email, clarifies that digital communication must ensure effective notice to uphold natural justice.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST assessment uploaded after the taxpayer’s registration was cancelled is invalid, as the assessee loses access to the GST portal.
The Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) re-examined the classification of Tapioca Flour (Thippi) sought by V.S. Trading Company. The AAR ruled that the product is a residue of starch manufacture (HSN 2303 1000) and is taxable at 5%, rejecting the applicants claim for Nil rate under HSN 1106.
AAR ruled that men’s pyjama sets consisting of a woven cotton shirt and pant fall under HSN 620721. For packs of 2 sets costing less than Rs.1,000 per piece, GST applies at 5% (CGST 2.5% + SGST 2.5%) as per Notification No.01/2017.
The West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) clarifies that Cotton Seed De-oiled Cake (HSN 2306) is fully exempt from GST effective from September 22, 2017, irrespective of its end-use as animal or aquatic feed. The ruling resolves supplier inconsistency and nullifies questions regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC).
