The Madras High Court quashed the rejection of a condonation application, holding that the delay in filing Form 10B had a reasonable explanation. The Court directed reconsideration of exemption under Section 11.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST order passed after the assessee failed to reply to a show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The court allowed reconsideration subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax.
The High Court held that there was no violation of natural justice because the taxpayer’s reply to the show cause notice was referred to and considered in the assessment order. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
The High Court set aside the Settlement Commission’s order rejecting a settlement application. It held that while non-cooperation was noted, the finding regarding lack of full disclosure lacked adequate reasoning.
The Madras High Court held that passing two assessment orders for the same GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B mismatch leads to duplication and double taxation. The earlier order was quashed and the later order was remanded for fresh consideration.
The court held that a retracted statement by a trustee alleging capitation fee collection cannot justify tax additions without corroborative evidence. In the absence of proof from students or supporting documents, the Revenue’s presumption was held unsustainable.
The High Court held that effective service requires authorities to consider alternative modes when there is no response to portal notices. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
The court quashed orders reversing ITC that were based solely on limitation under Section 16(4). It held that the amendment inserting Section 16(5) allowed ITC claims for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper notice and hearing.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition noting that the assessment order remained unchallenged for nearly eleven months, but allowed the taxpayer to file an appeal with additional deposit.
