Citing statutory requirements and CBIC circulars, the Court held that Section 74 cannot be used mechanically without evidence of intent to evade tax, resulting in quashing of orders.
Allahabad High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without issuing a mandatory notice in Form REG-17, even in cases of voluntary surrender, setting aside cancellation and appeal orders.
Gujarat High Court held that reimbursement of the service of the cost of repairing and restoration of the roads to AMC cannot be considered as a supply of service by the AMC so as to fasten the liability of the GST on reverse charge basis.
Recognizing common difficulties in accessing notices on the GST portal, the High Court directed a fresh adjudication and emphasized taxpayer trust and procedural fairness in the GST regime.
The Gujarat High Court set aside an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply regarding TDS under Section 194Q. The Court held that the faceless unit generated the order before reviewing the submission, violating natural justice. The case was remanded for a fresh decision after due consideration of the reply.
Bombay High Court held that the benefit of concessional rate on High Speed Diesel [HSD] against Form ‘C’ is not entitled since the usage of HSD is beyond specified purpose i.e. used beyond direct mining operations. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that licensing requirement under Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Brick Kiln (Regulation) Rules, 2017 applies to both manufacturer and dealers. Further, the licensing requirement doesn’t violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court held that PAN jurisdiction in ITBA [Income Tax Business Application] portal is of no consequence in absence of order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is liable to be quashed.
The Telangana High Court ruled that an assessment order passed ten years after an ITAT remand violated Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It held that the order was barred by limitation and unsustainable in law. The Court directed refund of taxes with interest, subject to the outcome of the pending departmental appeal.
Reassessment proceedings initiated without obtaining prior approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) such as the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General were invalid.
