The issue before the Court was whether a bare approval lacking application of mind could sustain proceedings under Section 153C. The Court held that mechanical approval vitiates the proceedings, reaffirming that valid approval is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could be denied appellate remedy due to non-appointment of GSTAT members. The Court held that limitation would start only after the Tribunal becomes functional and granted liberty to file appeal with statutory stay.
The Supreme Court granted interim bail while directing day-to-day trial, balancing liberty with strict conditions despite the High Court’s refusal of regular bail.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to deposit capital gains in CGAS does not bar Section 54 relief when the assessee invests in a new house within the prescribed period. The key takeaway is that substantive compliance overrides procedural lapses.
The High Court held that dismissal of a GST appeal on delay was improper where illness was supported by records. The key takeaway is that marginal delay with valid reasons must be condoned.
The High Court held that inter-State supplies remain taxable under IGST where goods are delivered outside the State. Contractual clauses on transfer of title cannot override Section 10(1)(a) of the IGST Act.
The case addressed GST demands raised through orders uploaded on the portal without proof of access. The Court ruled such orders were not effectively communicated. Matters were remanded after setting aside the demands, subject to partial deposit.
ITAT Kolkata held that ownership, transfer, and transaction resulting into profit from business or profession and capital gain in respect of joint development agreement needs more verification. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication.
NCLAT Delhi held that Form-B under CIRP Regulations, 2016 contemplates specifically permits set-off mutual credit, mutual debts, or mutual dealings between the Corporate Debtor and Creditor. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of refund claim, filed in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Customs, merely for the reason that Chartered Account Certificate is not as per prescribed format is not sustainable since format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested format and not a mandatory format.
