The Allahabad High Court set aside appellate orders dismissing GST appeals as time-barred after holding that the Revenue failed to establish actual communication of orders. The Court ruled that limitation must be computed from the date of effective communication disclosed by the assessee unless rebutted with evidence.
The Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Department was liable to compensate an assessee for delayed release of seized KVPs and IVPs after settlement dues were paid. The Court awarded interest for the delay period and additional simple interest for continued non-payment.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a consolidated GST show cause notice for multiple financial years, holding that the taxpayer had an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court kept all issues relating to limitation and jurisdiction open for the appellate authority.
The Calcutta High Court held that Income Tax Returns filed prior to the victim’s death could not be viewed with suspicion while assessing compensation. The Court enhanced compensation after reducing personal expense deduction from 50% to one-third.
The Calcutta High Court held that proceedings based on Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules could not continue after the provision was omitted without any saving clause. The Court quashed the GST refund demand order passed after deletion of the rule.
The Court ruled that tax authorities could not rely on COVID-related extension of limitation granted by the Supreme Court to justify delayed revision proceedings. The impugned GST revision order was therefore declared time-barred.
The Karnataka High Court condoned a 60-day delay in filing a GST appeal and restored the matter for decision on merits. The Court relied on earlier decisions passed in similar circumstances.
The Allahabad High Court held that no pattern of unequal marking by different interview boards was established in the UPHJS 2016 recruitment process and dismissed the plea for moderation of marks.
The Allahabad High Court invalidated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act after finding that only a chassis was being moved for refurbishment and no goods were loaded in the vehicle.
The Gujarat High Court set aside GST detention proceedings after finding that the final order was passed beyond the mandatory seven-day period prescribed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. The ruling reiterates that statutory timelines in detention cases must be strictly followed.
