The Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the assessing officer failed to verify whether cash deposits were used to create a fixed deposit. The case was remanded for fresh consideration after proper examination.
The High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act overrides the limitation under Section 16(4) if returns are filed before the specified cut-off date. The assessment denying ITC was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside an order rejecting release of seized jewellery after finding it was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. The application was directed to be reconsidered by the proper assessing authority.
The Court held that refund claims filed within statutory limitation cannot be rejected merely due to filing after a cut-off date, striking down the impugned circular and directing refund processing.
The High Court stayed a GST demand where the assessee alleged denial of a personal hearing under Section 75(4). The case turns on whether service through the portal sufficed after registration cancellation.
The court set aside tax and penalty proceedings initiated solely because the supplier’s GST registration was earlier cancelled. It held that once the registration was restored and transactions were supported by evidence, Section 74 action could not survive.
The Court held that reassessment was invalid where deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was lawfully claimed by a co-operative society. It ruled that interest from co-operative banks remains deductible when the assessee is not a co-operative bank.
Karnataka High Court held that bona fide error made while filing return in Form GSTR3B are allowed to be corrected. Further, it is held that such bona fide errors cannot be sole ground for initiating proceedings u/s. 73 of the GST Act.
The Court ruled that expenses on replantation and upkeep are revenue in nature and eligible for deduction. It followed the Full Bench decision which overruled the earlier restrictive interpretation.
HC held that Section 28 of Customs Act does not mandate communication of an extension order for adjudication. Delayed adjudication was upheld, leaving importer to pursue statutory appeal.
