Goods and Services Tax : Section 74A replaces the earlier Sections 73 and 74, creating a unified framework for tax recovery in cases of short payment, erro...
Goods and Services Tax : This case explains situations where ITC is availed and utilised without receipt of goods or services. The ruling clarifies that su...
Goods and Services Tax : Highlights how authorities routinely invoke Section 74 without evidence of fraud and explains courts’ stance that such notices a...
Goods and Services Tax : Understand the process of GST intimation in Form DRC-01A, issued for tax discrepancies. Learn about the parts of DRC-01A, applicab...
Goods and Services Tax : Calcutta High Court stays a GST order, citing no force majeure for time limit extension under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act for FY...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA represents to the Finance Minister on the misapplication of GST Section 74 notices for small demands, urging restriction to ...
Goods and Services Tax : KSCAA highlights practical GST challenges in Sec 128A & Sec 16(4), urging clarifications on appeals, ITC, interest waivers, and mu...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that clubbing five assessment years in a single GST show cause notice is contrary to Section 73 of the ...
Goods and Services Tax : The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter...
Service Tax : CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding n...
Corporate Law : The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatu...
Service Tax : The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, su...
Goods and Services Tax : New GST circular clarifies payment via GSTR-3B for Section 128A benefits, and appeal withdrawals for mixed period demands....
Goods and Services Tax : Learn about the Kerala SGST Act's interest and penalty waiver under Section 128A, eligibility, application process, and compliance...
Goods and Services Tax : Kerala SGST issues guidelines on issuing separate notices for Sections 73 and 74. Ensures clarity and uniformity in handling GST d...
The Madras High Court held that clubbing five assessment years in a single GST show cause notice is contrary to Section 73 of the CGST Act. It directed consideration of the taxpayer’s representation and separate year-wise proceedings.
The Madras High Court held that an order under Section 74 cannot be passed when the notice was issued under Section 73. The matter was remanded for fresh proceedings after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the respondent had paid the Service Tax before availing CENVAT credit on the disputed invoices. Finding no error in the adjudicating authority’s order, it dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures without necessarily requiring expert evidence. It restored the Trial Courts decree after finding the comparison legally valid.
The Gauhati High Court held that the extended limitation under Section 73 cannot be invoked without specific findings of fraud, suppression, or wilful intent. The Court set aside the service tax demand, interest, and penalty for lack of statutory compliance.
The Delhi ITAT held that notifications issued under TOLA extending limitation periods applied only to specified statutes and not to Black Money Act assessments. As a result, the assessment order passed beyond the statutory deadline was quashed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statements, and tax records, and the Revenue failed to establish any cash trail or nexus with alleged accommodation entries.
ITAT Delhi held that the PCIT exceeded jurisdiction by introducing issues not mentioned in the Section 263 show-cause notice. The revision order was quashed for travelling beyond the scope of the proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional condonable one-month period cannot be rejected mechanically on limitation grounds. The Court ruled that appellate authorities must examine whether sufficient cause for delay has been properly explained.
The case examined whether a tax order for FY 2019–20 was time-barred. The Court held that notification-based extensions validly extended the limitation period, making the order legally valid.
