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.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
The High Court directed the Appellate Authority to examine the taxpayer’s request to treat an earlier court-ordered deposit as statutory pre-deposit for GST appeals. The issue arose due to changes in the GST portal architecture and appeal filing process.
The Madras High Court directed removal of a bank account attachment after the purchaser reversed the disputed Input Tax Credit and proceedings against it were dropped. The Court, however, restrained the purchaser from making payments to the supplier pending resolution of related disputes.
