Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a single GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violated Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act and remanded the matter for separate year-wise proceedings.
Uttarakhand High Court directed refund of GST deducted on sale of rejected wheat and paddy seeds after noting that the goods were not sold in branded unit containers and GST liability was not disputed.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid where the Assessing Officer sought to make the same additions already annulled by the CIT(A). The Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision quashing the reassessment order.
The Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be reopened merely on suspicion arising from investigation reports. The Court ruled that “reason to believe” must be based on independent application of mind and material evidence.
The Bombay High Court held that blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A automatically ceases after one year. The Court ruled that continued restriction beyond the statutory period was illegal and arbitrary.
Bombay High Court held that short deduction of TDS under a different provision does not trigger disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Court ruled that only cases of non-deduction or non-payment of TDS attract provision.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed GSTR-3B returns along with applicable late fees. Bank attachments based on those orders were also set aside.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsustainable and directed immediate unblocking.
The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachment of bank accounts. The Court ruled that statutory safeguards are available through post-decisional remedies under Rule 159(5).
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
