The High Court ruled that sales tax exemption retained by an industrial unit was capital in nature because it was granted to encourage investment in backward areas. As a result, the subsidy could not be treated as taxable revenue.
The High Court granted regular bail in a GST evasion case, noting that the arrest memo did not specifically allege fraud or intentional evasion. The offences were triable by a Magistrate with a maximum five-year sentence.
The High Court held that Rule 86A does not permit blocking of input tax credit beyond the amount available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Negative balance entries were set aside as unsustainable.
The High Court upheld dismissal of a GST appeal where the appellant failed to substantiate reasons for delay. The ruling reiterates that condonation requires proof of sufficient cause, not mere assertions.
The court examined allegations of large-scale fraudulent availment and circulation of ITC without actual supply. Anticipatory bail was refused, holding that serious allegations and an ongoing investigation justified custodial inquiry.
The Court examined whether ITC could remain blocked under Rule 86A beyond one year on the same allegations. It held that continuation or re-blocking without fresh grounds is impermissible, and the blocked credit must be released.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that transfer of case from Chandigarh to Panaji under section 127 of the Income Tax Act to centralize the assessment of all connected or linked persons at one place is justifiable. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
The High Court ruled that Rule 86A does not permit blocking of input tax credit beyond what is available in the electronic credit ledger. Creating a negative balance was held to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court quashed a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, confirming that such notices must follow the faceless assessment procedure.
Punjab & Haryana High Court remands petitions for reconsideration, directing authorities to reassess educational institutions’ eligibility for Section 10(23C)(vi) exemption in light of Supreme Court rulings.
