The High Court found that the appellate authority had failed to act on the Tribunal’s direction requiring a speaking order for Assessment Year 2015-16. Holding that prolonged administrative inaction cannot leave an assessee without a remedy, the Court ordered time-bound disposal of the appeal.
The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee’s request to consider exemption under the correct statutory provision after a bona fide error. It set aside the orders and directed a fresh assessment.
The Karnataka High Court held that the arbitral award suffered from patent illegality because the Tribunal ignored invoices showing that GST had already been included in at least some non-tendered work bills. The Court set aside the award on this limited issue and directed fresh computation of GST and consequential interest.
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the taxpayer to seek revocation of GST registration cancellation by filing pending returns and paying unpaid tax, interest, and penalty. The competent authority was directed to decide the application in accordance with law.
The Karnataka High Court held that courts cannot direct GST authorities to waive statutory interest, penalty, or limitation merely because contractors face disputes over reimbursement of GST. The ruling clarifies that contractual disputes cannot override the statutory GST framework.
The Madras High Court held that penalty cannot be imposed when the entire turnover is disclosed and the incorrect classification arose from a bona fide belief. The Court upheld the deletion of penalty as there was no evidence of tax evasion or mala fide intention.
The Court held that a taxpayer who cleared outstanding GST dues could apply for revocation of a cancelled registration despite the application not being entertained earlier due to limitation. The authority must examine the application after verifying payment and return compliance.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after finding that a loose paper seized from a third party did not establish any live link with the assessee. The Court held that vague and non-specific material cannot justify reopening of assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that reassessment cannot be sustained merely because of high-value bank transactions without evidence of escaped income. It quashed the Section 148 notices and Section 148A(3) orders after finding that the transactions were recorded in audited books and adequately explained.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely filing an income tax return does not amount to retracting a statement recorded under Section 132(4). It upheld the restoration of the Rs.1.5 crore addition after finding the alleged retraction to be belated.
