The Madras High Court held that letters issued to customers before determination of tax liability could not be used for recovery action. The Court ruled that such communications were invalid in the absence of a crystallised tax demand.
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte GST assessment order after the appeal period had expired. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax and filing of a reply to the show cause notice.
The Madras High Court held that reimbursements made to a foreign subsidiary for online advertising expenses were not included within the statutory scope of equalisation levy. The refund rejection order was set aside for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court held that a general penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act cannot be imposed when a specific late fee has already been levied. The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed payment of the applicable late fee.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after noting that the entire disputed tax liability had already been recovered. The taxpayer was allowed to submit additional documents and explanations.
The Madras High Court held that a show cause notice and assessment order issued in the name of a deceased proprietor are void. The order was quashed, with liberty granted to proceed against legal heirs according to law.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex parte GST assessment after the taxpayer claimed that notices were served only through the GST portal. The key takeaway is that taxpayers may receive a fresh opportunity to contest proceedings where effective participation was lacking.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment against a second-hand mobile phone dealer who claimed taxation should apply only to the margin under Rule 32(5).
The Madras High Court held that a taxpayer assessed under Section 62 for non-filing of GST returns can still obtain reassessment by subsequently filing the pending returns. The key takeaway is that GST law provides a statutory opportunity to regularize compliance even after a best judgment assessment.
The Madras High Court stayed the operation of a GST assessment and demand relating to seigniorage fee. The Court held that further action should await the Supreme Court’s decision on the same legal issue.
