Telangana High Court held that grievances relating to multiple show cause notices and multiple assessment orders for the same tax period can be addressed through rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act.
The Court granted conditional relief in a GST dispute involving a 133-day delay in filing appeal proceedings. Recovery action was stayed subject to deposit of 10% of the assessed tax amount.
Telangana High Court directed GST authorities to furnish supporting documents attached to the cancellation show cause notice after finding that the annexures were not supplied to the taxpayer. The Court held that the assessee must get a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken.
Both parties agreed that the dispute was governed by an earlier High Court order involving identical issues. Based on the consensus, the Court allowed the petitioner to seek rectification of the GST assessment order.
Telangana High Court directed the taxpayer to deposit 10% of the disputed tax demand and granted protection from coercive recovery action until disposal of the second appeal by the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.
Mumbai ITAT held that granting only seven days for compliance before dismissing an appeal violates principles of natural justice. The Tribunal restored the Section 69C addition matter for fresh adjudication after finding inadequate hearing opportunity.
Mumbai ITAT held that the 10% tolerance band introduced under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is curative and retrospective in nature. The Tribunal deleted addition arising from stamp duty valuation difference as the variation was only 7.44%.
Mumbai ITAT held that Section 69A cannot be invoked where loan transactions are fully routed through banking channels and recorded in regular books of account. The Tribunal deleted the addition despite Revenue alleging the transactions were accommodation entries based on third-party search material.
Bangalore ITAT held that applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot be rejected on grounds of non-compliance when the assessee had already submitted replies before the ITO as directed. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh consideration after finding the rejection contrary to records.
The Bangalore ITAT accepted the assessee’s explanation that medical issues and expiry of the digital signature certificate caused the delay in filing appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not deprive an assessee of an opportunity to contest major additions on merits.
