The Karnataka High Court quashed the order rejecting revocation of GST registration because documents submitted by the taxpayer were not considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court held that a corporate guarantee cannot be equated with a bank guarantee and upheld a 0.5% guarantee commission rate. The Court rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the 3% rate adopted by the Transfer Pricing Officer.
The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay in filing appeals after noting that the issue relating to contributions under Section 57(2A) of the KCS Act had remained unresolved for over a decade. The Court also directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the remanded matter within four months.
The Karnataka High Court held that a Magistrate conducting recovery proceedings under the KVAT Act has no authority to determine the validity of statutory ‘H’ Forms. The Court directed the taxpayer to approach the Assessing Authority instead.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a reassessment after finding that the Section 148 notice was based on an incorrect allegation of property sale. The Court held that reopening requires bona fide reasons supported by relevant material.
The Court held that, for assessment year 2009-10, filing the audit report along with the return was directory and not mandatory. Deduction under Section 80IA could not be denied when the report was furnished during assessment proceedings.
The High Court held that the issue requires consideration where the show cause notice preceded the amendment. It granted interim relief allowing the appeal to be entertained without the 10% penalty pre-deposit.
The issue involved rejection of a delayed revocation application for cancelled GST registration. The Telangana High Court held that a non-speaking order without proper consideration of the delay explanation cannot stand and directed fresh adjudication.
The issue involved delay in disposal of a rectification application filed against a GST order. The Telangana High Court directed the proper officer to decide the application within two weeks in accordance with law.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could directly invoke writ jurisdiction claiming that a GST show cause notice and order were merely uploaded on the GST portal and not properly communicated.
