The High Court affirmed the assessment by applying its earlier decision while directing payment of differential tax to enable statutory compliance.
The court held that a works contractor cannot challenge a GST assessment months after becoming aware of it, as a rectification application was already pending.
The High Court allowed a religious society to submit delayed audit documents, citing the treasurer’s age and Covid-19 as valid reasons, directing authorities to reconsider exemption under Section 11.
The Court held that assessments under Section 73 without prior Rule 142(1)(A) notices are invalid. Section 61 scrutiny must be completed first, and unsatisfactory explanations require issuance of the notice. The assessments were quashed, and the matter remanded to the proper officer.
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that notices issued under Sections 148-A and 148 outside the faceless assessment scheme are illegal, emphasizing strict compliance with Section 151(A) and E-Assessment Scheme, 2022.
Nannapaneni Krishnamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation and proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 12 and 13 in Crime No. 8 of 2021 registered at the CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri. The case involves […]
The Andhra Pradesh High Court invalidated GST assessments where notices under Rule 142(1A) were not issued before assessment, emphasizing mandatory compliance prior to Oct 2020.
Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a single, composite GST show cause notice or assessment order covering multiple financial years is impermissible under the GST Act. The court set aside the orders and directed authorities to initiate fresh, year-specific proceedings.
The Court directed tax authorities to share material forming the basis of a ₹1.79 crore GST demand with the petitioner, citing violation of natural justice if withheld.
The Court ruled that GST authorities cannot simultaneously act under both Sections 129 and 130 and directed the officer to specify the chosen route within two days.
