The High Court held that since the petitioner’s appeal was pending when Rule 96(10) was omitted through Notification No. 20/2024, the provision could not be applied. The demand and penalty were quashed.
The Gujarat High Court allowed restoration of GST registration after confirming full tax, interest, and fee payments in the Electronic Cash Ledger, permitting the petitioner to file pending returns.
Gujarat High Court held that reimbursement of the service of the cost of repairing and restoration of the roads to AMC cannot be considered as a supply of service by the AMC so as to fasten the liability of the GST on reverse charge basis.
The Gujarat High Court set aside an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply regarding TDS under Section 194Q. The Court held that the faceless unit generated the order before reviewing the submission, violating natural justice. The case was remanded for a fresh decision after due consideration of the reply.
Gujarat High Court held that PAN jurisdiction in ITBA [Income Tax Business Application] portal is of no consequence in absence of order passed under section 127 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, notice and order thereof is liable to be quashed.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a property attachment order, holding that the 2016 Benami Amendment Act applies only prospectively. The ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s finding that actions under the Act cannot cover transactions before 25 October 2016.
Gujarat High Court held that petition for levy of VAT on supply of medicines, stents, implants, consumables etc. during the course of treatment of patients is dismissed. Accordingly, levy of VAT on such supply sustained.
Gujarat High Court permits furnishing of pending GST returns, in the matter of cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of return for continuous period of six months, since substantial amount of outstanding tax with interest and late fees already deposited.
Gujarat High Court quashed CBDT’s rejection and condoned delay in Sysco Industries’ income tax return filing, holding that insolvency and fire caused genuine hardship.
AO must apply their own mind to the contents of the DVO report and any other available material as relying solely on a DVO’s report without any independent inquiry or satisfaction was a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that invalidated the entire reassessment proceeding from the start.
