Assessment orders passed pursuant to express liberty granted by the High Court during pendency of settlement-related litigation remain valid and enforceable. Mere keeping of demand in abeyance did not invalidate already communicated assessment orders, nor did it require passing of fresh assessment orders after rejection or abatement of settlement proceedings.
The Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was sent back to the tax authorities for a fresh decision on merits.
The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 notices were not considered. The Court directed a 10% pre-deposit and mandated reconsideration on merits.
The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Court ruled that separate notices and adjudication are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not require any mandatory pre-deposit. The Court upheld the direction to pursue the statutory remedy and protected the appellant on limitation.
The Madras High Court held that refusal to permit cross-examination does not automatically vitiate GST proceedings involving alleged fraudulent ITC claims. Taxpayers can establish entitlement to ITC through independent documentary evidence.
The Court held that the assessee failed to produce any written or registered document proving transfer of property to the firm. Consequently, the challenge to the assessment proceedings was rejected, leaving the assessee to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer can rely on a sellers valid registration at the time of purchase. ITC cannot be denied merely because the sellers registration was cancelled retrospectively.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied merely because the sellers registration was cancelled retrospectively. A purchaser is entitled to rely on a valid registration existing at the time of transaction.
The Court emphasized that procedural defaults should not override substantive tax benefits where genuine hardship exists. It directed tax authorities to consider delayed returns and proceed with assessments in accordance with law.
