The Karnataka High Court held that the petitioner must receive a real opportunity to respond before an adjudication order is passed. It quashed the GST demand and restored the proceedings for fresh consideration.
The Madras High Court held that a cash loan advanced in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains legally recoverable. It ruled that the breach may attract statutory penalties but does not invalidate the underlying transaction or bar recovery through a civil suit.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A without issuing prior notice violated the principles of natural justice. It quashed the blocking order while permitting fresh action in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The Court held that the assessment and consequential demand could not stand where the petitioner had not participated in the proceedings and offered a bona fide explanation. The matter was remanded to the notice stage for fresh consideration.
The Madras High Court upheld GST demands after finding that higher seigniorage fees and lower outward supply declarations provided sufficient basis to invoke Section 74. The Court ruled that the material on record justified proceedings for alleged suppression of turnover.
The Gauhati High Court held that sufficient cause for delay may be explained in the memorandum of appeal itself. It ruled that an appeal cannot be rejected solely because no separate condonation application was filed.
The Delhi High Court held that ESOP expenditure cannot be disallowed merely because shares were allotted instead of purchased from third parties. It found no substantial question of law and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Telangana High Court held that a show cause notice merely reproducing Section 29(2)(e) of the CGST Act without disclosing factual allegations violates principles of natural justice. It set aside both the cancellation notice and the suspension of GST registration while permitting fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
An accused could not be kept in jail indefinitely in a money laundering case when the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The court granted bail to the accused, observing that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that continued detention would be unjustified.
Non-maintenance of minimum balance by customers did not generate taxable consideration and, therefore, no service tax/GST, interest or penalty could be levied. Revenue was also bound by its earlier acceptance of an identical adjudication order in favour of another bank.
