The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in restoring benami appeals solely on the basis of liberty granted in a later Supreme Court review order. It ruled that statutory limits governing review proceedings must still be satisfied.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued physically by jurisdictional officers instead of faceless authorities violate Section 151A. The ruling sets aside non-compliant notices while tying the final outcome to pending Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court set aside notices issued under Sections 148A and consequential reassessment orders after holding that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The relief, however, remains subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP.
The Allahabad High Court held that persons illegally detained beyond permissible limits are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per day. The Court directed that such compensation be recovered from the salaries of erring officials after disciplinary proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 cannot be denied merely because import and SEZ transactions were absent from GSTR-2A. The Court held that GSTR-2A did not capture such data during the relevant period, making the demand unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the issue of broken period interest when the legal position had already been settled by binding precedents. The Court quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A and 148.
The Orissa High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4) could not be rejected as time-barred. The ruling emphasises proper computation of limitation by excluding the date of communication of the order.
The Court held that where a purchasing dealer has complied with statutory requirements and acted in good faith, ITC cannot be denied solely because the supplier failed to discharge tax obligations. The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were therefore quashed.
The Madras High Court remanded an ex parte assessment arising from a GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch after finding that the assessee should be allowed to present its case. Relief was granted subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
The Kerala High Court set aside a show cause notice covering multiple financial years, holding that such composite notices were legally unsustainable. The authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each assessment year.
