Karnataka HC held excess electricity use alone cannot establish clandestine manufacture or excise evasion without reliable corroborative evidence.
The High Court upheld the invocation of Section 74 but remitted the matter for verification of revenue neutrality, directing the taxpayer to establish that tax had already been discharged on the goods sent for job work.
Chhattisgarh High Court upheld ITAT’s finding that the reassessment order exceeded the limitation under Section 153 and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
Karnataka HC held GST liability must be determined under statute, not contract. Directions against GST authorities to pay contractor’s tax dues were set aside.
Madras HC held one year of practice before Income Tax Authorities is mandatory for registration under Rule 257, despite prescribed qualifications.
The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond.
Bombay High Court restored GST registration subject to payment of outstanding GST dues, interest, late fees and penalty within prescribed timelines.
The Court held that repeated summons under Section 70 cannot continue once the inquiry purpose is satisfied and sufficient material is available.
The High Court held that the assessment was time-barred as it was not completed within the mandatory period under Section 144C.
The Court held that the availability of a statutory appeal barred interference in writ jurisdiction. It ruled that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
