The Court struck down a GST demand by holding that assignment of long-term leasehold rights amounts to transfer of immovable property, not a taxable supply. The ruling reaffirms that such assignments fall outside Section 7 of the GST Act.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C notice due to a 22-month delay in recording the satisfaction note, ruling it violated Supreme Court guidelines for immediate post-assessment action.
Gujarat High Court held that petitioner being 100% EOU of zero-rated supply without payment of tax is entitled for refund of unutilized ITC. Since petitioner is not deemed exporter para no.2.2 of clarificatory Circular No.172/04/2022-GST dated 06.07.2022 would not be applicable.
The Court ruled that reassessment could not be initiated based on audit objections containing factual errors and overlooking prior accepted depreciation. The decision underscores that reopening must be based on proper evaluation of facts, not mere audit remarks.
The High Court held that the Commissioner did not properly apply the wide discretionary powers under section 264. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the petitioner’s circumstances and submitted records.
Gujarat High Court held that Explanation to section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to loss on sale of shares which were acquired on conversion of partly convertible debentures. Hence, loss on sale of such shares is not speculation loss and hence set off allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that since for the year under consideration, there is no retention of income but in fact there is a deficit of 7%, hence the question of denying the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act wouldn’t arise. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that recovery of interest amount which became due u/s. 50(1) of the CGST Act can be done only after issuance of intimation in Form GST DRC-01D. Accordingly, order quashed with direction to department to initiate proceedings by issuance of notice in Form GST DRC-01D.
The Court held that late audit by the state-appointed Sub-auditor justified condonation of delay in filing the return. It found that the authority failed to consider mandatory guidelines requiring examination of audit-related delays. The impugned orders were quashed and fresh return filing was permitted.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a chemical manufacturer’s refund claim of unutilized ITC under Rule 89, affirming SEZ units can claim refunds even when supplied via ISD. Prior precedent in Britannia Industries guided the decision.
