The High Court ruled that clubbing several tax periods into one GST show cause notice is illegal. All proceedings based on such a consolidated notice were quashed, with liberty given to restart proceedings lawfully.
Finding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond section 151A, the Court quashed the reopening notices. The ruling highlights that reassessment cannot proceed without valid jurisdictional foundation.
The Court held that a conditional stay requiring 20% deposit is not final. Assessees can seek review before the Principal CIT/CIT under CBDT instructions.
Reassessment actions were quashed where sanctions were not lawfully granted under section 151A. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with statutory approval requirements.
Proposed adjustments against stayed demands were held impermissible. The Court ruled that such actions cannot defeat the assessee’s right to timely refund with interest.
The Court found that the explanation regarding dividend income was on record but not examined. Reopening based on an incorrect recording of facts was held to be invalid.
The High Court held that a single notice covering several financial years violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Each assessment year must be proceeded against independently within its own limitation period.
The High Court held that issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C is invalid where the Transfer Pricing Officer proposes no variation. The key takeaway is that absence of TP adjustment means the assessee is not an “eligible assessee,” making DRP proceedings without jurisdiction.
The High Court ruled that data management services provided to a foreign affiliate constitute export of services, with the place of supply outside India. GST demands raised by treating such services as intra-State supplies were set aside.
The Court held that claims exceeding ₹1 crore under the Scheme cannot be rejected outright. Such claims must be examined with enhanced verification as expressly provided in the policy.
