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).
Facing arguments that ITC must remain blocked during an investigation against a supplier, the Madras HC ordered GST authorities to reconsider the blocked ITC claim under Rule 86A(2) after getting inputs from the State Authority.
The High Court set aside an order against Sai Computers, ruling that the final GST demand of Rs. 155,878.26 was invalid as it grossly exceeded the Rs. 20,916.90 specified in the initial show-cause notice, violating Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The Court remanded the matter back to the authority for a fresh, lawful determination.
ITAT Deletes ₹19.04 Lakh Addition: Agent’s Cash Deposits Were Company Collections The ITAT ruled that cash deposits of ₹19.04 lakh made by commission agent Shyam Singh Hetta were reconciled collections for his principal, DTM Pvt. Ltd., and deleted the unexplained money addition under Section 69A.
The Madras High Court allowed TVS Srichakra Limited’s plea, declaring Notification Nos. 14/2017, 15/2017, and 16/2017 ultra vires for exceeding the scope of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and quashed related show cause notices.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order because the Tax Officer’s claim of ‘no documents submitted’ was factually contradicted by the records, which indicated a reply with enclosures was filed. The case is remitted for a fresh hearing and order.
ITAT Ranchi directed the AO to readjudicate the tax liability for a ₹23.5 lakh cash deposit after the assessee claimed the bank wrongly attached his PAN to a company’s account. The AO must verify if the company disclosed the account and had adequate cash for the deposit.
Citing violation of the principles of natural justice for denying an adjournment request, the Delhi HC set aside the expiry of the limitation period for Acme India’s GST appeal. The appeal challenging the order, which confirmed a tax demand arising from alleged ineligible ITC from fake firms, must be decided on merit.
