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.
The issue was a 44-day delay in filing Form 10B by a charitable trust. The Court held the delay was due to genuine hardship and directed acceptance of the form.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed without disposing of objections to recorded reasons. The Court held that failure to decide objections vitiates the entire reassessment.
The Court examined rejection of condonation for delayed e-filing despite acceptance of related delays. It ruled that authorities must consider genuine hardship and cannot deny relief on a purely technical ground.
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the permissible surviving period were valid. The Court held they were time-barred and quashed them, reinforcing strict adherence to limitation rules.
The High Court set aside a GST notice covering four tax periods in one proceeding. It held that Section 73 requires year-wise notices with separate limitation for each assessment year.
