The High Court upheld dismissal of a GST appeal where the appellant failed to substantiate reasons for delay. The ruling reiterates that condonation requires proof of sufficient cause, not mere assertions.
The Tribunal held that while interest on enhanced compensation was taxable as per settled law, the exemption claim for land compensation required verification. The matter was remanded for fresh examination.
The court accepted medical treatment as an explanation for failure to file appeal in time but found it insufficient without conditions. The ruling underscores that relief can be granted while balancing procedural discipline through costs.
The court addressed denial of a GST refund arising from repeated deficiency memos on a leasehold transfer. It held that the refund must be processed promptly upon application, reinforcing accountability of tax authorities.
The High Court set aside GST registration cancellation where fraud was alleged without evidence or particulars. It held that vague notices and bald orders violate natural justice.
Appellate authorities could not summarily dismiss applications without verifying the actual submissions made by the taxpayer as for service exporters, FIRCs and BRCs were the gold standard for proving that services were exported, and proceeds were realized in convertible foreign exchange.
Failing to report transporter details in your quarterly TDS return was a procedural error, not a tax deduction failure. Since assessee was not liable to deduct tax (thanks to the declarations), Section 40(a)(ia)—which applied only when tax is deductible but not deducted—could not be invoked.
The court ruled that delayed filing of Form 10 for income accumulation cannot defeat exemption when substantive conditions are met. Rejection of condonation was held unsustainable.
The court held that late electronic filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse that should not defeat charitable exemption. Orders rejecting condonation on technical grounds were quashed.
The court held that late filing of Form 10B is a procedural lapse and does not automatically bar charitable exemption. Substantial compliance before appellate proceedings was found sufficient.
