The issue was whether a taxpayer could pursue a statutory appeal after approaching the High Court against a GST demand order and subsequent bank attachment notice.
Mumbai ITAT held that the Revenue could not attribute the entire execution revenue from cross-border deals to the Indian PE without adequate evidence. The Tribunal upheld revenue sharing based on actual functions performed by overseas offices.
Mumbai ITAT held that maintenance charges and other collections received exclusively from members of a co-operative society are exempt under the doctrine of mutuality. Surplus generated from such receipts does not constitute taxable income.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that additions under Section 69 cannot be sustained merely on suspicion when the entire property investment is supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that conjectures cannot substitute proof.
The Madras High Court held that failure to file the annual return in Form GSTR-9 attracts late fee under Section 47(2) of the CGST Act. It further ruled that penalty under Section 125 is permissible where no separate penalty is prescribed for such default.
The Tribunal ruled that information from the Sales Tax Department and generic statements of alleged hawala dealers are insufficient without transaction-specific evidence. The key takeaway is that direct documentary proof carries greater evidentiary value.
Additions made by attributing the commission income earned by PSPL as undisclosed income of the Assessees were held unsustainable in law and were directed to be deleted across all relevant assessment years as Revenue had failed to establish inflation of purchase prices; accrual of PSPL’s commission income to assessees; any flow back of funds to the Assessees; or that PSPL was a sham or fictitious entity.
The High Court held that healthcare services remain exempt even when delivered through another hospital under a revenue-sharing arrangement. Classification must follow the true nature of the supply rather than the contractual structure.
FIR registered against officials and the liquidator of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (PLL), which alleged non‑payment of subcontractor dues and misuse of Goods and Services Tax (GST) input credits in connection with the Gas Authority of India Ltd (GAIL) pipeline project was quashed as mere breach of contractual obligations, delayed payments, GST disputes, or financial reconciliation issues did not constitute the offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention existed from the inception of the transaction.
The issue was whether ITC could be denied solely because the taxpayer failed to produce lorry receipts and weighment slips despite possessing tax invoices and dealing with a registered supplier.
