The Delhi High Court held that an adjudication order passed by an officer who never personally heard the assessee violates principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that “one who hears must decide” and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Delhi HC held that a taxpayer can legally carry on business through a mobile phone in addition to the registered principal place of business.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order after finding that the taxpayer was given only one day to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to file a reply.
ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not on an unimplemented extension proposal. The Tribunal directed recomputation after recognizing termination of the agreement before 2024.
The Mumbai ITAT held that reversal of securitisation provisions already disallowed in earlier years cannot be taxed again upon write-back. The Tribunal ruled that such taxation would amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a composite GST assessment order covering multiple financial years violates Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for separate assessment proceedings for each assessment year.
