The High Court granted a second opportunity after finding that assessment orders were passed without reply, as notices were sent to an old employee’s email ID.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST, applying the reading down principle to Section 16(2)(c).
The High Court denied bail, holding that serious allegations of loan diversion through shell entities were supported by bank records and witness statements. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The High Court granted a post-decisional hearing after finding that a proper Chartered Accountant’s certificate with UDIN was not filed before the appellate authority. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to submit relevant documents.
High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
The High Court ruled that mud engineering services and related chemicals supplied under a drilling contract are naturally bundled and constitute a composite supply under GST. Separate invoicing does not alter the integrated nature of the contract.
Relying on the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), the Court quashed orders reversing ITC as time-barred. The Department was restrained from proceeding on limitation grounds.
The Tribunal confirmed demand under Section 73(2), citing the Managing Director’s admission and failure to register for manpower services. Cum-tax valuation was allowed for recalculation of liability.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
ITAT Amritsar upheld rejection of 12AB registration after finding that only ₹2.51 lakhs out of ₹40 lakhs received was spent on charitable activities. The Tribunal held that minimal charity expenditure and dominant non-charitable spending justified denial of registration.
