The High Court ruled that when the initial pre-deposit exceeds 20% of the revised tax demand, no additional payment can be insisted upon for filing appeal before GSTAT.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer must prove actual possession of unexplained money with cogent evidence. Mere suspicion or reliance on third-party search statements is insufficient to justify addition under Section 115BBE.
The High Court held that orders can be served through the notified GST common portal under Section 169. The challenge to portal-based communication was rejected.
The High Court held that Rule 86A merely creates a lien to secure revenue interests and does not amount to recovery of tax. Blocking of ITC was upheld where authorities recorded reasons to believe fraudulent or ineligible availment.
The High Court held that international roaming services are supplied to foreign telecom operators who pay consideration, not to individual subscribers. Since the recipient is located outside India, the services qualify as export, making the refund admissible.
Guwahati High Court held that the Summary of the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 is not a substitute to the Show Cause Notice to be issued in terms with Section 73 (1) of the CGST/SGST. Accordingly, order based on issuance of summary of the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
DG Anti Profiteering Vs Mantri Castles Private Limited (GSTAT) The proceedings arose from a reference received from the Standing Committee on 30.05.2022 to investigate an application alleging profiteering in respect of construction services supplied for the project “Mantri Serenity” at Bangalore. The allegation concerned non-passing of benefit under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The […]
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years required approval from the higher authority specified under the amended section 151. Since sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority, the entire proceeding was invalidated.
Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal held that no notice could be issued once the six-year period under the old regime had expired. The reassessment order was therefore annulled.
The High Court ruled that the amended refund formula under Rule 89(5) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. Earlier rejection and appellate orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
