The Court upheld GST tax and penalty where multiple goods were transported without invoices or E-way bills. Subsequent production of documents at the appellate stage was held insufficient to cure defects found during inspection.
Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
Kerala High Court held that Bank is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to senior citizen who has provided Form 15H. Accordingly, Bank cannot be considered as assessee in default for non-deduction of such TDS.
The court held that valid registration under income-tax law is a relevant factor under FCRA and cannot be ignored. Failure to consider it violated Section 52, which makes FCRA supplementary to other laws.
The Court held that relief cannot be denied under Section 264 merely because a similar issue was earlier pending before the Supreme Court. The revision application was allowed as the issue was already covered by binding High Court rulings.
The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
Karnataka High Court held that order invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and blocking of Electronic Credit ledger without granting pre-decisional hearing and passing of order without containing independent or cogent reasons is impermissible in law. Accordingly, order quashed.
Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that non-filling of registration number in Part-B in e-way bill is curable defect and the same would not invalidate or render illegal the e-way bill. Accordingly, levy of penalty u/s. 129 of the KGST Act is not tenable in law.
The Delhi High Court directed fresh adjudication after holding that denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond renders the GST demand unsustainable, while keeping the notification validity issue open.
