The Orissa High Court remanded a GST appeal for fresh adjudication after finding uncertainty regarding service of hearing notices before passing the ex parte appellate order.
The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a victim before the Sessions Court. The matter was transferred in light of the Supreme Courts ruling in Celestium Financial.
The Gujarat High Court directed the State Government to reconsider retrospective electricity duty exemption for a charitable trust engaged in hospitals and social services. The Court also restrained recovery of past electricity duty until a decision is taken.
The Bombay High Court held that the Appellate Authority could not reduce transitional credit by relying on MVAT mismatch figures outside the scope of Section 140 of the MGST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of the transitional credit claim.
Works contracts for government buildings and educational institutions remain a highly litigated area therefore, merely relying upon Form 26AS data and illegal invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was not justified.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a GST demand order after holding that service through affixation without exhausting other statutory modes violated Section 169 of the CGST Act. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with notice service requirements before raising tax demands.
The Bombay High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order after finding that the show cause notice contained no reasons. The Court held that orders lacking reasons violate principles of natural justice and are legally unsustainable.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that alleged low production yield and power consumption variations could not justify addition without supporting evidence of unaccounted sales. The Court ruled that assessment cannot be based on suspicion or mathematical assumptions alone.
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court directed restoration of GST registration even though the statutory appeal had been dismissed as barred by limitation. The relief was made conditional upon filing returns and payment of tax, penalty, and interest.
The Calcutta High Court restrained the Income Tax Department from taking coercive steps in reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice issued in December 2024 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 149.
