The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order quashing reassessment notices issued to multiple foreign companies of the GE Group. The High Court had held that the Assessing Officer lacked tangible material to reopen assessments.
The Authority observed that the core element of the transaction was the grant of a non-exclusive right to access Coursera’s proprietary digital platform. It ruled that the supply involved licensing of intellectual property rather than educational services.
CAAR Mumbai held that imported elevator parts lacking guide rails, structural supports, and enclosure systems could not be classified as complete elevators under Rule 2(a). The authority ruled that the imports only represented parts and sub-assemblies requiring separate tariff classification.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
The GSTAT held that customer emails denying receipt of ITC benefit could not outweigh books of accounts, ledgers, and credit notes showing price adjustments. The Tribunal recognised adjustment of dues as a valid mode of passing GST benefits.
The GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine profiteering calculations after observing a possible miscalculation in the Input Tax Credit figures. The Tribunal sought additional documents and ordered submission of a supplementary report.
The GSTAT set aside the DGAP’s profiteering report after questioning the methodology used to calculate Input Tax Credit benefits in a real estate project. The Tribunal directed a fresh investigation and recalculation of alleged profiteering.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that statements relied upon against assessees cannot be used without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The matters were remanded after finding violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still requires satisfaction recorded during assessment proceedings. Absence of such satisfaction rendered the penalty invalid.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an audit report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B was a procedural lapse that could not defeat substantive exemption rights under Section 12A. The Court directed the authority to decide the condonation application within a specified timeline.
