ITAT Panaji held that the only requirement under the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) is that an interest income or dividend income should be earned by a co-operative society from another co- operative society. Section 80P does not make a distinction between income earned on long term investments and short term investments
Delhi High Court noted that delays on the part of the respondent-department in processing the pending claims for refund result in unnecessary burden of interest on the ex-chequer. Accordingly, court directed the Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes to ensure that all pending refund claims are processed as expeditiously as possible.
Madras High Court held that assessment order passed without considering important submission by the petitioner is a non-speaking order and against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed and remanded back for fresh consideration.
Kerala High Court held that after participating in a tender process, bidder cannot turn around and challenge the conditions in the bid document. As the bid amount was including GST, bidder-petitioner cannot claim the GST amount in addition to the amount bided.
HC set aside penalty order passed by the Revenue Department on ground that order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Assessee was not afforded full opportunity to contest allegations against it. Set aside penalty order.
HC set aside the order for cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee passed by the Revenue Department on the ground that the order is not sustainable as the reply to SCN furnished by assessee was not taken into consideration by Revenue Department, directed the Revenue Department to restore the GST Registration of the assessee.
Bombay High Court held that declarant making voluntary disclosure for availing benefit of SVLDR Scheme is ineligible for applying under the scheme if it was subjected to audit as on 30th June 2019.
Petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner falls in the category of case under Section 125(1)(f)(i) of Finance Act as on 30 June 2019, there was no enquiry/investigation pending against the Petitioner and at the most the same could be as initiated by way of notice dated 28 August 2019 by the Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) CGST, Belapur.
CESTAT Chennai held that Revenue cannot take a different stand when the Revenue has accepted the principles laid down in a previous case. Accordingly, demand cannot be sustained.
Calcutta High Court held that non-filing of GST return vis-à-vis cancellation of GST registration, an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the petitioner who failed to file the GST return as incurred heavy loss and accordingly was under tremendous mental stress.
