The Bombay High Court held that GST deposited during investigation before adjudication could not be treated as voluntary payment. The Court directed refund of Rs.3 crore with interest if delayed.
Bombay High Court upheld deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) where there was only short deduction of TDS and the recipients had already paid taxes. The Court also reiterated that the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) operates retrospectively from 01.04.2005.
The Bombay High Court held that rejection of a manual GST appeal was unsustainable where DRC-07 was not available on the GST portal. The matter was remanded for reconsideration under the proviso to Rule 108 of the CGST Rules.
Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation were void ab initio. The Court quashed the demand order passed in the name of the amalgamating entity.
Bombay High Court observed that payments made while search proceedings are continuing may not automatically qualify as voluntary deposits. Court granted tax authorities an opportunity to take corrective steps if refund entitlement exists.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
The Bombay High Court held that blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A automatically ceases after one year. The Court ruled that continued restriction beyond the statutory period was illegal and arbitrary.
Bombay High Court held that short deduction of TDS under a different provision does not trigger disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). Court ruled that only cases of non-deduction or non-payment of TDS attract provision.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
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.
