The Court held that alleged non-compliance relating to bank account details under Rule 10A must be addressed through Form GST REG-31 after suspension of registration. Use of Form GST REG-17 was found legally unsustainable.
The Madras High Court held that refusal to permit cross-examination does not automatically vitiate GST proceedings involving alleged fraudulent ITC claims. Taxpayers can establish entitlement to ITC through independent documentary evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that directing GST authorities to provide seven days’ prior notice before coercive action does not amount to blanket anticipatory bail. The ruling clarified that such protection merely preserves the individual’s right to seek legal remedies while allowing investigations to continue unhindered.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Delhi High Court upheld the denial of Section 10(38) exemption after finding that the authorities had rightly treated the share transactions as bogus. The Court held that concurrent factual findings supported by evidence could not be interfered with in appeal.
The High Court held that issuing a demand notice along with a draft assessment order violated the mandatory procedure under Section 144C. Since the assessment had effectively been completed at the draft stage, the reassessment orders were quashed.
The Court found that the ITAT wrongly held there was no business income despite the assessment record showing income under “Business and profession.” The finding was held to be perverse and the orders were set aside.
The Gauhati High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns could seek restoration by complying with Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. The Court directed the authorities to consider the application upon payment of dues.
The Delhi High Court upheld the ITAT’s deletion of expense disallowances, noting that the books of account had not been rejected. The ruling highlights that ad hoc disallowances require stronger justification.
The Court set aside the 2013 judgment striking down the Entry Tax Act after holding that the precedents relied upon had been overruled by the Supreme Court in Jindal Stainless. The retrospective amendments introduced in 2017 were upheld.
