The High Court held that while Section 128A(4A) directs Customs appeals to be decided within six months, this is a directory provision. Appeals should be disposed of as soon as possible to avoid undue delay.
The court addressed a GST recovery notice where the petitioner claimed no liability as invoices were unpaid. The case was remitted for fresh consideration with evidence submission.
The Court set aside the GST demand after finding that the final order sought an amount higher than what was specified in the show-cause notice. The case was remanded for fresh proceedings with an opportunity to respond.
The Court struck down a GST demand by holding that assignment of long-term leasehold rights amounts to transfer of immovable property, not a taxable supply. The ruling reaffirms that such assignments fall outside Section 7 of the GST Act.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C notice due to a 22-month delay in recording the satisfaction note, ruling it violated Supreme Court guidelines for immediate post-assessment action.
Gujarat High Court held that petitioner being 100% EOU of zero-rated supply without payment of tax is entitled for refund of unutilized ITC. Since petitioner is not deemed exporter para no.2.2 of clarificatory Circular No.172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 would not be applicable.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCN based on documents, statements, evidence seized passed on by Income Tax Department cannot be held to be baseless and vague. High Court warns GST Department and other departments to be careful while citing judicial precedents specifically if the same has been produced or accessed through Artificial Intelligence [AI] software.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notices issued under Sections 148-A and 148 outside the faceless assessment scheme are illegal, emphasizing strict compliance with Section 151(A) and E-Assessment Scheme, 2022.
The Court held that refund appeals pending for years must be decided within the statutory one-year period under the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to issue orders by January 2026.
The Court held that the penalty could not stand because the goods were accompanied by genuine documents and the e-way bill failure was due to a technical glitch. It ruled that no intention to evade tax existed and quashed the proceedings.
