The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
Madras High Court held that the Central Board of Trustees under the EPF Act can challenge Tribunal orders under Article 226 since the constitutional right to seek judicial review cannot be denied.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline case, the High Court reiterated that GST appeal limitation cannot be extended while granting conditional relief.
The Madras High Court held that penalties under Section 122 of the CGST Act must equal the ineligible ITC availed or passed on in circular trading cases. The Court ruled that the Rs.10,000 limit cannot apply where the statute uses the phrase “whichever is higher.”
The Madras High Court directed GST authorities to keep proceedings on seigniorage fee and royalty demands in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. The Court, however, required deposit of 10% of the disputed tax as security.
The Madras High Court held that prosecution under Section 276CC was invalid because the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the assessee’s case. In absence of a transfer order under Section 127, the complaint was held unsustainable.
The Madras High Court set aside a Section 74 GST assessment order involving mismatch between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-7 returns in government contract transactions. The Court ordered fresh adjudication after noting that 23% of the disputed tax had already been recovered.
