Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST order after authorities ignored a valid adjournment request despite being informed that the assessee was outside India.
The Tribunal deleted an addition under Section 69A after holding that cash deposits were explained through prior bank withdrawals. The ruling affirms that redeposit of own withdrawn cash cannot be treated as unexplained.
HC upheld Section 10A deduction after finding that STP unit was a new undertaking with fresh investment and infrastructure. It ruled that unit was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s reply and the payment already made through DRC-03. The ruling reiterates that material submissions must be examined before confirming tax and penalty.
The High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that notices were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices” tab, denying proper service and hearing. The case reinforces procedural safeguards under GST law.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised merely because the exporter mis-declared goods or value. Liability under CBLR requires independent proof of broker’s breach of obligations.
The High Court held that additions for excess cash and stock cannot rest only on a survey statement. It ruled that statements under Section 133A lack conclusive evidentiary value without corroborative material.
The Tribunal upheld deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) where interest income was earned from deposits with a co-operative bank. It held that a co-operative bank remains a co-operative society for this purpose.
The Bombay High Court held that additions under Section 153A cannot be made for completed assessments when no incriminating material is found during search. Post-search documents like base notes are insufficient to justify additions.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the assessment order was passed without giving a fresh hearing. The ruling reiterates that orders under Section 73 must comply with principles of natural justice.
