Levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight under Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) contracts was unsustainable in law as such a tax constituted double taxation contrary to the principle of composite supply under the GST law.
Madras High Court held that non-responding to notice and non-appearance on hearing due to fact that notices were uploaded only through GST portal and there was no service of notice via physical mode. Accordingly, order set aside on ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Madras HC rules contractor cannot defer GST payment due to non-reimbursement by govt client, but grants relief allowing payment in eight equal monthly installments.
The High Court issued an interim direction against the CIT (Exemptions) orders that rejected the condonation of significant delays in a charitable trust’s Form 10B filing. The ruling provides interim protection, ensuring the trust’s substantive exemption claim isn’t defeated by technical filing delays while the CBDT’s new restrictive guidelines are under judicial scrutiny.
Madras High Court held that deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act not eligible in absence of any demonstrable evidence regarding any expense incurred towards eligible project to substantiate development of eligible project.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
The Court stayed recovery proceedings initiated under Section 226(3) against the assessee’s bank accounts, noting that a stay application was already scheduled for hearing. Since the taxpayer had exercised his appellate and rectification rights, the Court found the Department’s coercive action premature. It ordered maintenance of status quo until the next hearing date. The judgment emphasizes fairness and procedural propriety in tax recovery.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department acted without due verification in raising a demand on a deactivated PAN. Since the Department had already recognized the active PAN in earlier proceedings, the fresh demand appeared erroneous and procedurally invalid. Justice C. Saravanan granted an interim stay and sought production of the relevant assessment records. The case highlights the need for robust PAN verification before initiating recovery actions.
Madras High Court rules on GST notice service via email, clarifies that digital communication must ensure effective notice to uphold natural justice.
