The High Court quashed reassessment notices holding that mere receipt of dividends and capital loss does not establish sham transactions. Allegations against fund managers cannot automatically implicate investors.
Karnataka High Court held that demand of service tax on ocean freight on import services is liable to be quashed since the petitioner are not the recipient of service for the purpose of notification no. 3/2017-ST dated 12.01.2017.
The issue was whether recovery could continue after filing GST appeals with pre-deposit. The High Court held that the recovery notice lost its force and ordered de-freezing of the bank account.
The Madras High Court remitted a GST order for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that the petitioner must submit a reply with supporting documents before finalizing the tax demand.
The issue was whether GST show cause notices could be quashed at the threshold. The High Court held that alleged procedural lapses can be raised before the adjudicating authority, not in writ proceedings.
The Court refused to quash GST recovery notices after noting that the adjudication order had been upheld in appeal and never challenged further. The ruling confirms that recovery can proceed once appellate remedies are exhausted.
The High Court granted regular bail noting completion of investigation, seizure of documents, and the documentary nature of allegations, holding that continued custody was unwarranted with conditions to secure presence.
The Court held that rejection of a GST appeal was invalid where prior payments under protest already satisfied the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement.
The High Court held that an assessment order issued in the name of a dead person is a nullity. It ruled that proceedings must be continued only after issuing notice to legal representatives under Section 159.
The court upheld GST cancellation after finding inconsistent affidavits and no supporting evidence of business activity. Mere allegations of procedural lapse without prejudice were held insufficient.
