The Madras High Court ruled that a GST summary demand order in Form DRC-07 is invalid if the mandatory show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 was not issued first, even if a preliminary notice (DRC-01A) was sent.
Kerala High Court recalls its 2024 order after finding petitioner’s GST refund plea was wrongly linked to a batch case challenging Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act.
Madras High Court compels Assistant Commissioner (CT) to refund ₹1.14 Cr in excess VAT paid by Madhucon Projects for AY 2008-09, upholding the Single Judge’s order.
Delhi HC dismissed a writ challenging a ₹6.27 Cr GST demand, noting the firm’s two-year lifespan suggested fraudulent ITC intent. Court directed the firm to pursue the Section 107 statutory appeal.
NCLAT held that small disputed amounts below ₹1 crore do not justify Section 7 proceedings or penalties under Section 65 when debt is substantially repaid.
Supreme Court admits appeal by Tesco Bengaluru against CESTAT ruling on reverse charge service tax for seconded overseas employees, relying on the Northern Operating Systems precedent.
CESTAT Chennai rules Service Tax cannot be levied on the TDS amount paid by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider, as TDS is not ‘consideration’ for the service.
CESTAT Allahabad quashes Service Tax demand against a contractor, ruling that reliance solely on unverified ITR and Form 26AS data is insufficient and invalidates the extended limitation period.
Bombay High Court admits Revenue’s appeal against ITAT. Issues concern if contracts reallocated to JV members require TDS (S. 194C) and where profit should be taxed.
Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA (7.5% presumptive tax on gross receipts), rejecting the Assessing Officer’s attempt to tax it under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
