Delhi High Court held that demand notice issued by Competition Commission of India being served during subsistence of the stay is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Bombay High Court held that reopening of assessment proceedings on the basis of change of mind/opinion and also on non-application of mind is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, impugned notices and order quashed.
Delhi High Court held that VAT (Audit) officer, not being jurisdictional officer, are not competent to complete assessment. Accordingly, assessment orders are quashed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Kerala High Court held that compounding under KVAT Act for that year cannot be cancelled in case suppression of turnover is detected with respect to dealer who have paid tax at compounding rate. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of petitioner.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST penalty under section 129(3) cannot be imposed for non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill caused by a technical glitch without intent to evade tax.
Hostel properties used as residences by inmates could not be treated as commercial properties. The levy of property tax, water tax, water charges and electricity charges under commercial tariff was unsustainable.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of second provisional attachment order under section 83(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act passed on the next day after expiry of maximum statutory period of one year is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, provisional attachment order quashed.
Karnataka High Court held that payments made at the time of search cannot be construed as voluntary under section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the payments made in form DRC-03.
Orissa High Court held that submission of Audit Visit Report beyond the prescribed time limit invalidates the entire audit assessment under Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 [Odisha VAT Act]. Since notice is invalid, the Assessment Order, therefore, is insupportable.
The Court held that an adjudication based solely on GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch cannot stand when the prescribed procedure under Circular 183/15/2022-GST is not followed. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
