The High Court set aside dismissal of a GST appeal rejected for late filing of a certified copy. The ruling holds that timely online filing should not be defeated by hyper-technical objections.
The High Court set aside blocking of Input Tax Credit where State tax authorities had already initiated proceedings on the same subject matter. The ruling holds that parallel action by central authorities violates Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Gujarat High Court holds refund claims maintainable for interest paid under protest on wrongly demanded GST for assignment of leasehold rights, quashing mechanical rejection via RFD-03.
Gujarat High Court held that notice under section 148A(b) cannot be issued for verification on the part of the Assessing Officer. Such verification is to be conducted u/s. 148A(a) prior to issuance of notice. Thus, order passed thereon is liable to be quashed and set aside.
The Court ruled that a marginal eight-minute delay in filing the return could not justify denial of loss carry forward. The order rejecting condonation was set aside to prevent disproportionate hardship.
Karnataka High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. is exercisable only in exceptional circumstances. Thus, interim bail stands rejected since present matter cannot be termed as exceptional.
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The Court held that findings of the appellate authorities clearly established the assessee’s role as a developer. With concurrent factual findings, the appeal was rejected for lack of any substantial legal question.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrued as income. The Court held that retention money is contingent on contract completion and not taxable until the right to receive crystallises.
While not deciding the validity of the disputed notifications, the High Court granted relief due to lack of hearing.The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the case after receiving the taxpayers reply.
