Mere clerical error in filing GSTR-3B, when GSTR-1 reflected correct figures and no revenue loss occurred to department, could not be a ground for raising tax demands and taxpayer was permitted to rectify a clerical error made while filing GSTR-3B.
Transfer or assignment of leasehold rights of industrial plots did not amount to a taxable supply under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as per provisions of Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II and Schedule III.
Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application since the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled. Also, there is sufficient material collected by ED to show that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
Madras High Court held that option of admitted liability inadvertently not changed to disputed liability and hence petitioner was unable to file appeal. Accordingly, liberty is granted to file an appeal after depositing 15% of disputed tax amount.
Bombay High Court held that if municipal rateable value doesn’t depict correct annual value, AO can make independent enquiry under section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act and determine the sum which the property is reasonably expected to fetch for purpose of determining annual value u/s. 22.
Allahabad High Court quashes a GST demand of over Rs. 18 lakh against a deceased proprietor, ruling that a show cause notice must be issued to the legal heir.
Madras High Court held that delay of one day in filing of an appeal before appellate authority is condoned since reason for delay appears to be genuine. Accordingly, delay condoned and respondent/ department directed to take appeal on record.
Calcutta High Court remands GST appeal as assessee claims unawareness of SCN uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders,” ordering appellate authority review.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a GST notice, ruling that uploading it to the common portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d).
The Madras High Court has set aside an ex parte tax order against G.P. Engineers, remanding the case for fresh consideration after 80% of the disputed tax was recovered without a personal hearing.
