The ITAT Rajkot set aside the addition of ₹16.99 lakhs in Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) against the assessee, who acted only as a Power of Attorney (POA) holder for the property sale. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting the assessee was not the property owner or seller.
The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noting that the petitioner was not a partner or director of the accused company and that the complainant did not simply rely on the petitioner’s introduction.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST assessment order, ruling that the revenue authority’s scheduling of a personal hearing before the deadline for the assessee’s reply was procedurally incorrect. The holding emphasizes that an assessment must be performed according to the scheme of Section 75, which allows the assessee a right to adjournment and requires the hearing to address the filed reply.
The Madras High Court dismissed Tvl. Saravana Projects & Co.’s writ against a confirmed GST demand for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC), finding no procedural defects in the order. The court noted the writ was filed after the statutory delay condonation period for appeal expired.
Gauhati High Court declined to entertain a writ against a GST order alleging double taxation on a joint venture, holding that the issue should be raised before the appellate authority, with liberty to appeal within 45 days without limitation bar.
High Court directs Central GST to consider the jurisdictional bar under Section 6(2)(b) before adjudicating years already finalized by State GST Authorities.
High Court found the GST department failed to follow natural justice principles by not ensuring proper alternative service of the Show Cause Notice.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the Principal Additional Director General of DGGI is authorized to provisionally attach bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The court referenced Notification No. 14/2017, equating the rank to a Principal Commissioner.
This judgment clarifies that any final GST demand must strictly adhere to the maximum amount specified in the original show-cause notice, as per Section 75(7) of the GST Act.
Proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act are void if the SCN and demand are issued against a deceased proprietor without notifying the legal representative. The court held that Section 93 does not permit determination against a dead person.
