The Madras High Court held that a GST assessment order issued after the death of the proprietor was a nullity. The department was permitted to initiate fresh proceedings against the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court set aside GST orders reversing ITC claims after noting the retrospective amendment extending the deadline for availing credit up to 30.11.2021. The Court held that claims falling within the amended timeline could not be denied on limitation grounds.
The Court held that a shareholder holding requisite voting strength has a statutory right under Section 169 to convene an extraordinary general meeting if the board fails to act.
The Madras High Court held that general penalty under Section 125 of the GST enactments cannot be imposed where a specific late fee provision exists under Section 47. The Court quashed the penalty portion of the GST order relating to delayed annual return filing.
The Court ruled that assessment proceedings cannot continue in the name of a deceased proprietor. Fresh notices, if any, must be issued to the legal heirs in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court remitted the GST matter for fresh adjudication after the taxpayer agreed to deposit 50% of the disputed tax amount. The Court also directed reconsideration of the reply and supporting documents on merits.
The Madras High Court held that membership fees received for long-term time-share agreements could not be fully taxed in the first year because the assessee had continuing obligations to provide facilities over 99 years.
The Court held that cancellation of GST registration is justified where material indicates that ITC claims are supported by fabricated documents and fake invoices. The appeal against cancellation was dismissed.
The Madras High Court directed automatic lifting of bank attachment once the taxpayer deposited 25% of the disputed GST demand and paid the full late fee. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration could not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47). The Court held that no capital gains tax liability arose for the relevant assessment year.
