The Telangana High Court quashed rejection remarks under the 2024 scheme, holding that the order was too cryptic and lacked reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after personal hearing.
The High Court upheld Section 19(20) of the TN VAT Act, ruling that excess input tax credit must be reversed when goods are sold below invoice purchase price. It held ITC is a statutory concession and can be restricted to safeguard revenue.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
Telangana High Court held that rejection of refund application by refund sanctioning authority not sustained since authorities failed to demonstrate that services rendered by petitioner tantamount to intermediary services. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court set aside the remand order after finding legal infirmities in compliance with arrest safeguards under the CGST Act. It held that failure to properly furnish written grounds of arrest rendered the remand unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that compensation paid to agent on account of loss due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rate is allowable as business expense under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, disallowance of the same is not justified and liable to be deleted.
The Bombay High Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple financial years is impermissible. The ruling emphasizes that limitation and assessment under GST operate year-wise.
The High Court set aside the termination of an employee accused of submitting false educational documents, holding that no enquiry or hearing was conducted. The order was found to be stigmatic and punitive, violating principles of natural justice.
The High Court quashed an adjudication order as the notice was served only electronically after GST registration cancellation. Physical service under Section 169 was held mandatory.
The Court held that losses already set off in earlier years cannot be notionally carried forward for computing deduction under Section 80IA. The ruling follows binding precedent restricting retrospective reworking of absorbed losses.
