The Madras High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible and must be issued separately for each financial year.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
The court held that although the defendant established title through a court auction purchase, injunction could not be granted as possession on the date of the suit was not proved.
The Court set aside a GST assessment order based on an ITC mismatch after the taxpayer claimed the seller failed to upload invoice details. Fresh assessment was allowed subject to deposit of 10% of disputed tax.
The court held that when an importer claims that a licence is not required under a notification, authorities must first consider the representation on merits. Customs were directed to provide a hearing and pass a reasoned order before refusing clearance.
The Madras High Court granted liberty to file an appeal within 30 days and directed the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits without considering limitation.
The Court ruled that the petitioner must approach the appellate authority under the GST law, while granting conditional liberty to file the appeal despite limitation.
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A after the Managing Director admitted availing ITC on blocked invoices during inspection. The Court ruled that such admission weakened the taxpayer’s challenge to the department’s action.
