Madras High Court directed authorities to defer GST proceedings relating to royalty and seigniorage fees for quarrying minerals until the Supreme Court decides the larger dispute. The petitions were disposed of on terms similar to earlier cases.
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
Gauhati High Court held that proceedings initiated through a time-barred show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act were without jurisdiction. The adjudication order was consequently quashed.
The High Court held that the State could not continue GST proceedings or block ITC after failing to submit its claim during the corporate insolvency resolution process. The impugned notice and ITC blockage were set aside.
The High Court clarified that completed assessments do not abate upon search proceedings because no assessment proceedings remain pending. However, the earlier assessment loses enforceability after a fresh Section 153A assessment is passed.
The Bombay High Court held that corporate guarantees issued without any fee, commission, or consideration cannot be treated as taxable supplies under GST. The Court quashed GST proceedings and show cause notices issued against the company.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary powers under Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer had already conducted enquiries and accepted a plausible view. Mere dissatisfaction with the depth of enquiry does not render the assessment order erroneous.
The Court held that Members of Parliament and other constitutional authorities are entitled to the honorific “Hon’ble” under established protocol. It clarified that personal familiarity or grievances cannot justify omission of the recognized honorific.
The Bombay High Court ruled that GST authorities cannot create a negative balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger while blocking ITC under Rule 86A.
The Delhi High Court held that CBDT Circular dated 18.11.2024 clearly prescribed a maximum period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year for seeking condonation of delay. Since the application for AY 2020-21 was filed after 31.03.2024, the Court upheld its rejection as time-barred.
