The Bombay High Court held that the CGST Act does not permit consolidation of different financial years and tax periods in a single Section 74 show cause notice. The impugned notice was quashed with liberty to issue fresh notices in accordance with law.
The Court upheld deletion of a ₹1 crore addition under Section 68 after noting that the assessee had furnished lender details, source of funds, and repayment evidence. It held that the dispute was purely factual and raised no question of law.
The High Court granted bail in a GST fraud prosecution after noting that the investigation had been completed and the complaint had already been filed. The Court held that the allegations would be examined during trial and continued custody was not warranted at that stage.
The High Court granted regular bail on the principle of parity after noting that a similarly placed co-accused had already been released. The ruling emphasizes consistent treatment of accused persons in comparable circumstances.
The Court held that the issue was covered by its earlier ruling on Section 55A. It upheld the deletion of long-term capital gains addition and rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the DVO reference.
CESTAT Chennai held that exports made under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the DEPB scheme cannot be included in exempted turnover for Rule 6(3A) credit reversal. The Tribunal consequently set aside the demand for alleged short reversal of CENVAT credit.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration and granted the taxpayer four weeks to file pending returns and clear dues. The ruling emphasizes providing an opportunity to regularise compliance where revenue interests are not adversely affected.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of an addition relating to alleged bogus capital gains. The Court found that shares held for over a decade as genuine investments could not be treated as penny stock transactions.
The Gujarat High Court upheld deletion of a loss disallowance after finding that contract notes, banking records, and trading documents supported the genuineness of the share transactions. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose.
The petition challenged a common Section 74 notice and adjudication order covering FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court stayed the operation of the adjudication order pending further proceedings.
