The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand based on delayed ITC claims after noting that Sections 16(5) and 16(6), inserted retrospectively, cured the defect relied upon in the proceedings.
The dispute concerns whether works contracts executed for the Delhi Jal Board attract GST at 12% or 18%. The High Court held that the legal issue regarding DJB’s status as a local authority requires consideration and stayed the show cause notice proceedings.
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were not properly considered. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST demand order, holding that the taxpayer should first avail the statutory appeal under Section 107. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226.
The Court observed that the authority rejected the refund claim without recording specific findings on the issues raised. The dispute was remanded for fresh examination and a speaking order.
While noting the delay in filing the writ petition, the Court entertained the challenge because the assessment orders lacked a DIN. The orders were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued on 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 exceeded the statutory ten-year limitation period. The reassessment notice was therefore quashed as time-barred.
Allahabad High Court held that share capital additions under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely on doubts about the investor’s source of funds. In the absence of evidence showing that the money originated from the assessee and was routed back, the addition was unsustainable.
Calcutta High Court held that deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) can be taxed only in the hands of a registered or beneficial shareholder. The Revenues appeal was dismissed following binding judicial precedents.
The Delhi High Court held that the period granted to an assessee for filing a reply under Section 148A(b) must be excluded while calculating limitation under Section 149. Since the Assessing Officer acted within the permissible period, the reassessment proceedings were upheld.
