Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of the assessing officers signature renders a GST assessment order invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering several financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The assessment order was set aside with liberty to initiate separate proceedings year-wise.
The High Court held that GST on ocean freight under FOB contracts cannot be levied separately when the transaction has already suffered tax. The ruling extends the anti-double taxation principle beyond CIF contracts.
The High Court ruled that GST revocation applications may be filed manually if online filing difficulties arise. The authority was directed to consider the revocation request after receipt of tax payments.
The High Court ruled that absence of the assessing officer’s signature renders GST assessment orders legally defective. It held that such defects cannot be cured under Sections 160 or 169 of the CGST Act.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that absence of a DIN number rendered the GST assessment order invalid. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that TTD qualifies as both a Governmental Authority and Governmental Entity under GST notifications. Assessment and appellate orders denying concessional GST benefits were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
In a commercial suit regarding specific performance, High Court had allowed a Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Special Judge for Commercial Disputes that had rejected the plaintiffs’ application to file additional documents.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each assessment year.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegations of mala fide conduct were unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that statutory investigation based on a Tax Evasion Petition could not be invalidated on speculative claims.
