The Kerala High Court set aside the ITAT and CIT(E) orders after finding that the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 had not been properly examined. The Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the trust’s request for registration from 1 April 2021 after granting an opportunity of hearing.
The Bombay High Court restrained authorities from initiating prosecution or penalty proceedings while considering a challenge to provisions of the Black Money Act. The Court allowed appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) to continue.
Considering Clauses 7 and 7.1 of the 2022 Circular, the Court found that the amount in question appeared to be compensation rather than payment for a supply. It consequently stayed coercive measures until the matter is finally adjudicated.
The Allahabad High Court held that GST appellate authorities cannot dismiss appeals solely on limitation without examining the actual date of communication of orders. The Court ruled that the burden lies on the Revenue to rebut an assessee’s declared date of communication with cogent evidence.
The Mumbai Bench of CESTAT held that proceedings arising from the same investigation and based on identical evidence could not be reopened after earlier orders had attained finality. The Tribunal upheld the order dropping the show cause notice.
The Chennai Bench of CESTAT held that preferential duty benefits under the Indo–Thailand FTA could not be denied by unilaterally rejecting a Certificate of Origin. The Tribunal ruled that authorities must follow the verification procedure prescribed under the Interim Rules of Origin.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a service tax order passed under the Finance Act, 1994 after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of an opportunity to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.
ITAT Delhi held that consolidated approvals granted without application of mind under Section 153D were invalid. Consequently, the related assessment orders were declared void and quashed.
CESTAT Chennai held that SAD refund cannot be denied when original files were misplaced by the department and substantive conditions stood satisfied. Procedural defects in reconstructed invoices were held insufficient to defeat refund entitlement.
The Delhi ITAT held that receipts from sale and restricted use of standard cybersecurity software could not be taxed as Fees for Technical Services. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents dealing with standardised technology offerings.
