Patna High Court held that there is no reason to entertain the writ petition on the ground of testing the constitutional validity of section 29(2) of both Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Bihar State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 since it is a mere after thought.
Calcutta High Court rules GST proceedings are valid if served through alternate means, even if not uploaded on the portal. Key clarifications for filing appeals under CGST Act.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that date of submission of claim would be recognized on accrual of cash incentive and not from date of submission or receipt of cash incentive.
Madras High Court remanded the matter back for reconsideration with condition to remit 5% of disputed tax demand since the tax proposal was confirmed because the tax payer did not appear for the personal hearing or respond to the show cause notice.
Gauhati High Court held that petitioner is entitled to claim input tax credit subject to conditions prescribed to newly inserted section 16(5) and section 16(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 which are inserted vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2024.
Madras High Court remitted the matter of imposition of GST on entire differential turnover since petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and petitioner has deposited 10% of the disputed tax demand.
Orissa High Court held that proper officer has exercised discretion in intimating petitioner that ITC has wrongly been availed. However, directed unblocking of Input Tax Credit for filing return within prescribed period.
Kerala High Court held that transferring 1st floor of the building to wife for reducing limit below prescribed threshold limit for levy of luxury tax is tax evasion and not tax planning. Hence, petition dismissed.
Madras High Court directed depositing of 25% to be deposited via electronic cash register since petitioner failed to participate in the adjudication proceedings. Thus, matter remanded back for fresh order on merits.
According to Section 103 of the CGST Act, unless an AAR ruling is challenged through an appeal, it remains legally enforceable, limiting the scope for the issuance of further show cause notices that contradict such rulings.
