A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
The court examined whether delay in Form 10B filing could be condoned but found the authority rejected it on unrelated grounds. It held that such rejection beyond the scope of Section 119(2)(b) was invalid and remanded the matter.
The issue involved classification of land for capital gains taxation. The Court held that revenue records and evidence of agricultural activity prevail, making the land exempt from capital gains tax.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated on issues already examined during scrutiny assessment. It ruled that reopening based on the same material amounts to a change of opinion and is invalid.
The Court dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioner failed to establish a clear connection with the goods and transaction. It held that lack of locus itself justified rejection of the challenge to the confiscation notice.
The Court ruled that cotton seed oil cake qualifies as cattle feed and is exempt from GST. The key takeaway is that exemption applies from the beginning of GST regime.
The case examined validity of a GST demand passed without hearing the taxpayer. The Court held that absence of personal hearing violates natural justice, requiring the order to be set aside.
The Court held that where an assessment is passed ex parte, fairness requires giving the taxpayer a chance to present their case. The matter was remanded upon partial tax deposit for fresh decision on merits.
The Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s replies and supporting documents. It held that lack of reasoning and mechanical conclusions rendered the order invalid.
