Allahabad High Court applied the doctrine of comity to quash a GST appellate order, directing a fresh decision in line with the un-appealed Bombay High Court judgment on the definition of service ‘recipient’ under the IGST Act.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition by Backbone Projects Limited, upholding the reopening of assessment based on fresh, credible information from investigating wings detailing the receipt of ₹1.25 crore in bogus accommodation entries. The court ruled that mere production of documents does not constitute a full and true disclosure when transactions are later found to be false.
The Madras High Court reserved petitioners’ right to claim a tax refund, agreeing to defer the decision until the Supreme Court rules on the SLP challenging the Gujarat High Court’s judgment in Sal Steels Limited. The Revenue cited conflicting rulings from the Delhi and Allahabad High Courts as grounds for delay.
Rajasthan High Court modifies bail condition with regard to foreign travel to petitioner involved in alleged tax evasion of Rs. 8.75 crores. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to travel abroad with prior information taking note of no flight risk.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that petition seeking release/reimbursement of GST cannot be entertained since relief of compensations sought is contingent upon the resolution of the disputed question of facts raised, and these questions cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court held that appellate authority to adopt liberal view and accept document since appropriate opportunity not granted by adjudicating authority to produce documents. Accordingly, writ disposed of and matter remanded back.
Delhi High Court held that order is liable to be set aside and matter remanded to ITAT since ITAT failed to provide appropriate reasoning with regard to functionality of comparable while undertaking transfer pricing adjustment.
Delhi High Court held that addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted since the said amount is already disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Once the order of ITAT had attained finality on factual aspects and assessee had discharged the entire liability, the Tax Recovery Officer was bound, under Section 225(2) to lift the attachment on property.
Entry 9 of Notification No. 8/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) and Entry 10 of Notification No. 10/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), both dated 28 June 2017, which had imposed Integrated GST (IGST) on ocean freight under reverse charge was quashed as levy on ocean freight amounted to double taxation
