The Madras High Court upheld GST demands after finding that higher seigniorage fees and lower outward supply declarations provided sufficient basis to invoke Section 74. The Court ruled that the material on record justified proceedings for alleged suppression of turnover.
The High Court ruled that the relevant date for filing refund claims is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange under the substituted notification. The refund claims were held to be beyond the limitation period.
The Madras High Court refused to condone a 15-day delay, observing that the delayed intra-court appeal appeared to be an attempt to evade or defer tax payment. It, however, allowed the assessee to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
The Madras High Court ruled that medical reimbursements up to ₹15,000 per employee cannot be subjected to Fringe Benefit Tax in the absence of a clear statutory charging provision. The judgment reiterates that tax cannot be imposed by implication or through administrative circulars.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order that was issued before the expiry of the time granted for responding to a reminder notice. The matter was remanded after directing payment of 10% of the disputed tax demand.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment after finding that repeated notices uploaded only on the GST portal did not provide an effective opportunity to respond. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a personal hearing.
The assessment was based on four discrepancies: reconciliation issues between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, input tax credit (ITC) mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, declaration of ineligible ITC, and invalid ITC under Section 16(4) of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court held that a supplier claiming GST exemption must prove that water was supplied through tankers and not as packaged drinking water. The assessment order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.
The Court held that, for assessment year 2009-10, filing the audit report along with the return was directory and not mandatory. Deduction under Section 80IA could not be denied when the report was furnished during assessment proceedings.
The Madras High Court admitted writ petitions challenging a GST demand arising from the classification of logistics services as intermediary services. Holding that the issue required detailed consideration, the Court stayed further recovery proceedings subject to a deposit of Rs.1.80 crore.
