The Madras High Court set aside a Section 74 GST assessment order involving mismatch between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-7 returns in government contract transactions. The Court ordered fresh adjudication after noting that 23% of the disputed tax had already been recovered.
The Calcutta High Court directed GSTN authorities to carry out backend changes after the GST portal failed to process the taxpayer’s request to opt out of the QRMP Scheme. The Court permitted migration to monthly GST return filing from March 2026.
The Telangana High Court held that time spent pursuing a rectification application and writ proceedings may be considered while deciding delay condonation in a GST appeal. The Court permitted the assessee to approach the appellate authority on merits.
The Gujarat High Court quashed reassessment proceedings after finding that the seized loose paper referred to non-agricultural land rates recorded after the petitioner had already sold agricultural land. The Court held that reopening based on hypothetical assumptions and unrelated material was unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST adjudication orders after finding that no personal hearing was granted before passing adverse orders. The Court held that Section 75(4) requires hearing even if replies to notices were not filed.
The Telangana High Court set aside a penalty under Section 271D after finding that the assessment order contained no recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. The Court held that Supreme Court precedent on mandatory satisfaction was binding on tax authorities.
Bombay High Court held that transitional CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because ST-3 returns were filed late. The Court emphasized that substantive credit eligibility must be examined based on actual tax payment evidence.
Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
