The Court quashed a GST assessment order passed ex parte and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, holding that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to present its case.
Show cause notice dated 06-12-2012 issued by the Additional Director General, DRI, was quashed for lack of jurisdiction in view of the law laid down in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.
The Court held that compensation paid to workmen under a Government-approved closure package was exempt under the second proviso to Section 10(10B). TDS could not be deducted on the amount.
The Court held that a typographical error in the tax period mentioned in the DRC-01 notice did not invalidate the proceedings because the relevant invoices were clearly identified. However, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply.
The Madras High Court held that a Section 74 order could remain in abeyance where a second appeal could not be filed due to a GST portal glitch. The Court directed the appeal to be taken on file and left the issue of Section 74 applicability open.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand based on delayed ITC claims after noting that Sections 16(5) and 16(6), inserted retrospectively, cured the defect relied upon in the proceedings.
The Madras High Court held that suspension of GST registration through the impugned GST REG-17 notice was unwarranted. While allowing cancellation proceedings to continue, the Court quashed the suspension portion of the notice and directed adherence to the Suguna Cut Piece Center guidelines.
The High Court set aside the GST demand for fresh adjudication after finding that the authorities had not properly examined stock records, GSTR filings, and transitional credit claims before confirming the demand.
The Madras High Court permitted the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal despite the assessment and rectification orders. The relief was granted subject to an additional pre-deposit and compliance with specified conditions.
The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscious claim of exemption and refund amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty.
