The Bombay High Court ruled that limitation under Section 201(3) must be calculated based on the financial year in which each quarterly TDS statement is filed. The decision confirms that annual or cumulative computation of limitation is not permitted.
The Gujarat High Court granted bail after observing that the accused’s role was mainly related to compliance activities and he did not appear to be a major participant in the alleged GST fraud.
The Kerala High Court ruled that land granted exemption under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for commercial or industrial use cannot be subjected to restrictions under the Paddy Land Act in the specific circumstances of the case.
The Kerala High Court held that a municipality cannot deny a building permit when the District Level Authorised Committee has permitted conversion of paddy land for residential construction. The Court directed reconsideration of the permit application.
The Court found that the Assessing Officer had knowledge of the amalgamation before issuing the assessment orders. Passing orders in the name of dissolved entities was held to be without jurisdiction.
The Court held that valuation of goods cannot be examined during detention proceedings under Sections 129 or 130 of the GST Act, and such issues must be decided by the assessing authority.
The Court held that blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger must automatically cease after one year under Rule 86A(3). Continued restriction beyond the statutory period was declared illegal.
The Madras High Court held that passing two assessment orders for the same GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch leads to duplication and double taxation. The earlier order was quashed and the later order was remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court condoned delay in filing a GST appeal where the taxpayer believed the supplier would rectify an ITC mismatch. The appeal was restored for decision on merits.
The Karnataka High Court held that once cognizance is taken, a private complaint assumes the nature of an FIR and may be referred to by the complainant during testimony. The Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision permitting such reference.
