The Delhi High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings in the Welcut Industries case due to the non-functional GSTAT. The stay is subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the demanded amount as pre-deposit.
Pune ITAT dismissed a firm’s appeal, confirming the PCIT’s order to tax Rs 19.44 lakh in unexplained cash and stock found in a survey under the stringent Section 115BBE.
Challenging a tax notice, Viable Venture Private Limited secured a stay on GST proceedings from the Allahabad High Court regarding a lease deed from before the UPGST Act. The court’s order noted that similar petitions have been entertained, challenging tax liability on pre-GST leases.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed GST assessment orders issued under Section 62 against Pushpa Decors after the required returns were subsequently filed. The court affirmed the assessment is deemed withdrawn under Section 62(2).
The ITAT Kolkata dismissed an appeal filed by Santhosh Devi Soni as withdrawn after the assessee elected to settle the tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request since the dispute was resolved under the settlement scheme.
The ITAT Lucknow quashed the ex-parte appellate orders for AY 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17, ruling that the CIT(A) failed in its statutory duty to pass a speaking order on the appeal merits. The case is remitted for a de novo assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that importers under the EPCG Scheme are entitled to IGST refunds for imports made between July and October 2017, following the Prince Spintex ruling.
Division Bench held that notices must be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), following Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and declared notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay in a GST appeal, citing the petitioner’s illness as sufficient cause, and directed the appellate authority to hear the case on merits.
The ITAT deleted the addition for cash deposits made during demonetization, concluding that taxing the same business receipts twice by first accepting sales and then applying Section 69A was unsustainable under the law.
