Madras High Court held that section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not applicable since GST component is already remitted by GAIL [transmission vertical]. Accordingly, provisions of section 76 of CGST cannot be invoked. Hence, present petition is allowed.
The court held that issuing a single show cause notice for multiple financial years violates GST law. It ruled such “bunching” is impermissible and directed fresh year-wise notices.
The case involved denial of exemption on petroleum-based turnover due to missing evidence. The Court held that the matter should be reconsidered after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit supporting documents.
The issue was rejection of an appeal filed beyond the condonable period under GST law. The Court allowed reconsideration due to a minor nine-day delay supported by valid reasons.
The Court set aside the Tribunals order as it relied on a precedent later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh determination based on correct legal principles.
The issue involved penalty imposed for alleged GSTIN discrepancy in transit goods. The Court held that payment concludes proceedings but allowed appeal without further pre-deposit.
The Court held that failure to prove identity and source of creditors attracts Section 68. Such unexplained credits cannot be treated as business income or eligible for deduction under Sections 80-IA/80-IB.
Madras High Court held that appropriation of refund made during pendency of an appeal is construed as payment of duty under protest and hence period of limitation doesn’t apply in such case. Accordingly, appeal stand allowed and order is set aside.
The High Court held that reinsurance premiums paid to non-residents are not taxable in India and no TDS is required. It upheld Tribunal findings and rejected Revenue’s challenge across multiple years.
The issue was whether GST demand could stand despite a later order dropping similar liability. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The key takeaway is that overlapping assessments must be properly reconciled.
