The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order after the petitioner stated that notices were sent to a paid email account that became inaccessible due to subscription default. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and GST registration was restored.
The petitioner stated that reassessment notices were not acted upon because the auditor failed to inform it about the proceedings. The Court allowed fresh adjudication and restored the matter to the Section 148A(b) stage.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a service tax order after observing that the authority failed to properly examine exemption claims under Notification No.25/2012-ST. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
The Court held that common trade parlance and industry understanding treated the goods as plastic sacks rather than textile products. This finding supported classification under HSN 3923.
The Gujarat High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the Income Tax Department relied on an undated and uninvestigated complaint. The Court held that reopening based on conjectures and unsupported material could not be sustained.
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were ignored. The Court held that failure to consider the reply violated principles of natural justice.
High Court held that GST authorities must consider CBIC circular clarifying implementation of Section 16(5) before sustaining denial of input tax credit for delayed return filing.
The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice without physical signature remains valid when the name and designation of the Assessing Officer are clearly mentioned. The Court ruled that Section 282A(2) recognizes such authentication in the digital era.
Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an old email address, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational and timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism instead of writ proceedings.
