Allahabad High Court voids a GST registration cancellation, citing a contradictory order that revealed non-application of mind and a lack of due process.
Allahabad High Court sets aside a GST registration cancellation, citing violations of natural justice, including improper notice and lack of a hearing.
Karnataka High Court held that challenge by revenue to the order of remand passed by Tribunal wouldn’t survive for further consideration hence appeal disposed of and question of taxability of software fees under DTAA not answered.
Delhi High Court held that strict application of rigours of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] not justified since quantity of Ganja recovered is marginally above threshold of commercial quantity under NDPS Act. Accordingly, bail application allowed.
Delhi High Court held that writ involving matter of availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit [ITC] under GST not entertained since due to availability of appellate remedy as the matter involves several factual issues and the concept of ITC by itself involves a series of transactions.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that an assessee can claim Section 54 exemption for capital gains on more than one house purchased, citing legislative intent and judicial precedents.
The Calcutta High Court invalidates a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the show-cause notice failed to specify whether the charge was for concealing or furnishing inaccurate income particulars.
Kerala High Court held that dismissal of stay petition on the ground of failure to comply with a non-existing condition precedent is perverse and requires interference. Accordingly, writ admitted and order set aside.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Xilinx India Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to interest on its delayed GST refund under Section 56 of the CGST Act affirming that interest is automatically payable without a separate claim if the refund is not processed within 60 days.
Sale proceeds of vintage car was taxable unless assessee proved that the car was used as a personal asset. Tribunal had rightly reversed the order passed by CIT (A), which had applied irrelevant considerations of wealth tax returns and non-claiming of depreciation in respect of the car by assessee.
