The Court examined whether employees could be penalised under Section 122(1A) for company-level GST violations. It held that only “taxable persons” fall within the scope of the provision, excluding employees without independent registration.
The case examined whether a lower TDS certificate applies prospectively or for the full year. The Court held it applies to the entire assessment year, negating default and interest liability.
Avanti Feeds Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerned the jurisdiction to assess and recover Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported goods and the authority of State GST officers to initiate proceedings in relation to such imports. The petitioner, […]
High Court held that receipts reflected in Form 26AS cannot automatically be treated as taxable services. Tax liability must first be established under the charging provisions of law after examining the nature of the receipts.
The Court held that taxes paid under GST must be reimbursed under contractual terms. The key takeaway is that proof of payment ensures entitlement to reimbursement.
The Court examined whether reassessment notice issued beyond limitation was valid. It held that notices issued after expiry of the six-year limit under the old regime are barred and liable to be set aside.
The Court held that reassessment under Sections 147/148 cannot be initiated solely on third-party data without independent evidence of income escapement. It ruled that such reopening amounts to suspicion and lacks the required “reason to believe.”
The Court held that the issue of treating DRP upload as receipt was already settled by earlier rulings. It dismissed the Revenue’s appeals while making the decision subject to the Supreme Court’s final outcome.
The issue was whether an Assistant Commissioner was competent to pass a GST demand order. The Court held the order invalid due to lack of proper authorization. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional compliance is mandatory for tax orders.
The issue was whether failure to reply justified confirmation of demand. The Court held that proper adjudication required a response and remitted the matter with conditions.
