Court held that amended gratuity rules effective from July 2013 governed all employees uniformly and prevailed over inconsistent provisions in the HR manual. The appeal seeking enhanced gratuity was dismissed.
Madras High Court held that time-share membership fees could not be fully taxed in the year of receipt since the assessee had continuing obligations extending over several years. The Court approved spreading part of the income over the membership tenure.
High Court reiterated that compensation awarded for compulsory land acquisition is not liable to deduction of tax at source under Income Tax Act. Payments under mediation settlement were directed to be released without TDS deduction.
Gujarat High Court upheld confiscation proceedings under Section 130 after noting that goods were transported without an e-way bill and penalty had been voluntarily paid without protest.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that GST recovery proceedings under Section 79 can be initiated against a bank after an assessment order becomes final and remains unpaid. The Court ruled that no separate pre-recovery notice to the dealer is required under the provision.
The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge to amended CGST provisions restricting ITC despite valid invoices and payment of tax. The Court issued notices and sought responses from authorities before considering interim relief.
Kerala High Court ruled that authorities must determine both whether the payment amounts to a supply under Section 7(1) and whether exemption provisions apply. The case was remitted for fresh adjudication.
High Court ruled that a GST order could not survive where SCN did not specify date, time, or venue for personal hearing. Judgment reaffirmed mandatory nature of Section 75(4) of CGST Act.
Patna HC refused to interfere with GST proceedings after taxpayer’s representative admitted liability towards interest and penalty during personal hearing. Court held that petitioner could not later take a contradictory stand in writ proceedings.
Gujarat HC held that reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 was valid where Assessing Officer received fresh investigation material alleging accommodation entries. Court observed that prima facie tangible material is sufficient at reopening stage.
