The High Court set aside the appellate order rejecting the petitioner’s delayed GST appeal, recognizing the death of the engaged Advocate and family circumstances as sufficient grounds for delay.
The High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal as the tax effect was below ₹2 crore, applying the CBDT monetary limit circular and leaving the Tribunal’s deletion of the Section 68 addition undisturbed.
The Calcutta High Court held that retrospective cancellation of a supplier’s GST registration alone cannot justify denial of Input Tax Credit, requiring a reasoned evaluation of submitted documents.
The Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings under Section 279(1) after the petitioner challenged the prosecution sanction, citing lack of collegium approval and denial of personal hearing.
The Calcutta High Court stayed further proceedings under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, citing questions on jurisdiction and compliance with CBDT circulars for alleged tax evasion.
The Calcutta High Court held that GST authorities cannot seize or seal cash under Section 67 unless it is shown to be useful or relevant to proceedings, and ordered de-sealing of ₹24 lakh cash.
The Court held that GST recovery exceeding 10% made earlier must be treated as statutory pre-deposit. The appellate authority must hear the appeal on merits without insisting on further payment.
The Calcutta High Court held that recovering more than 20% of a disputed tax demand from other refunds while an appeal is pending is impermissible. The ruling directs the Income Tax authorities to refund the excess amount.
Court allows appeal despite earlier dismissal for non-compliance with statutory pre-deposit, noting recovery of over 10% of disputed tax satisfies the condition. Key takeaway: partial pre-deposit enables merits hearing.
The court held that a VAT assessment without serving the required Form-25 notice is void, and any recovery made is unlawful. Tax authorities must ensure proper communication to enforce assessments.
