Gauhati High Court declined to entertain a writ against a GST order alleging double taxation on a joint venture, holding that the issue should be raised before the appellate authority, with liberty to appeal within 45 days without limitation bar.
High Court directs Central GST to consider the jurisdictional bar under Section 6(2)(b) before adjudicating years already finalized by State GST Authorities.
High Court found the GST department failed to follow natural justice principles by not ensuring proper alternative service of the Show Cause Notice.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Principal Additional Director General of DGGI is authorized to provisionally attach bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The court referenced Notification No. 14/2017, equating the rank to a Principal Commissioner.
This judgment clarifies that any final GST demand must strictly adhere to the maximum amount specified in the original show-cause notice, as per Section 75(7) of the GST Act.
Proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act are void if the SCN and demand are issued against a deceased proprietor without notifying the legal representative. The court held that Section 93 does not permit determination against a dead person.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a faceless assessment order totaling Rs. 3.87 crore after finding the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s timely reply, violating principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether, for Section 50C purposes, the stamp duty value should be taken on the date of the agreement (MOU) or the date of registration. The Karnataka High Court ruled the date of the agreement must be adopted when part of the consideration was paid via banking channel. Key Takeaway: The second proviso to Section 50C(1) is mandatory and allows the use of the lower stamp value prevailing on the agreement date if banking payment is made before registration.
Karnataka High Court held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of statutory period of limitation as prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Considering the duration of custody, the High Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail despite being identified as the mastermind of the GST evasion.
