The Madras High Court allowed reconsideration of an ex parte GST assessment after the assessee explained failure to respond due to a part-time accountant’s lapse. The Court remanded the matter subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Court permitted the assessee to contest denial of input tax credit after allegations of transactions with non-existent suppliers. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration upon payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Madras High Court directed authorities to defer GST proceedings relating to royalty and seigniorage fees for quarrying minerals until the Supreme Court decides the larger dispute. The petitions were disposed of on terms similar to earlier cases.
Madras High Court held that a reference to the District Valuation Officer was valid because the Assessing Officer had effectively rejected the books of accounts after recording discrepancies. The Court upheld the Section 69B addition for unexplained investment in building construction.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
The case examined the legality of imposing both late fee and general penalty for the same default. The Court ruled that such overlapping penalties are unjustified and unsustainable. The decision clarifies that only one penal consequence can be applied in such cases.
The case examined whether a statement recorded during search can justify tax additions. The Court held that confession without supporting evidence is insufficient. It reinforces that corroboration is essential for sustaining additions.
Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GST purpose. However, since there was no suppression of fact invocation of extended period denied.
The Court held that penalty under Section 73 cannot be imposed without justification even where tax liability is admitted. It allowed reconsideration of the issue while confirming liability to pay interest on delayed payment. The ruling emphasizes that penalty is not automatic.
