The Court set aside a GST demand that exceeded the amount proposed in the show-cause notice. The ruling reinforces the statutory cap under Section 75(7) on confirmed demands.
The Court held that petition, ARR processing, and licence fees collected while performing statutory regulatory functions do not constitute taxable supply under GST, leading to quashing of the show cause notice.
The Court will examine whether corporate guarantees issued by a parent company to its subsidiaries amount to a taxable supply under GST, while granting interim protection against coercive action.
The High Court held that a direct appellate challenge to the final removal order was not maintainable. The appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ against the removal order.
Orissa High Court held that legal heir cannot fall within ken of Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 hence proceedings under section 73 of the Finance Act determining service tax after the death of the service provider is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
The High Court held that a GST adjudication order cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. Both adjudication and appellate orders were set aside for violating Section 75(7).
The Court ruled that recovery of tax without supplying the assessment order lacks authority of law. Refund with interest was directed unless the order is traced and served by a specified date.
Delhi High Court held that issues relating to debt and fraud is within the jurisdiction of NCLT to be determined in accordance with IBC. Resultantly, the power of a civil court to entertain the present suit is, therefore, statutorily barred. Accordingly, the plaint is rejected.
The court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding doubt over valid service of notices. Failure to ensure proper communication denied the assessee a fair hearing.
The High Court quashed an ex-parte appellate order after finding that penalty was enhanced without giving the taxpayer an opportunity of hearing. The ruling holds that such enhancement violates Section 107(11) and principles of natural justice.
