The Delhi High Court observed that rejection of a GST refund claim after repeated judicial directions to grant the refund may amount to contempt. The Court granted time to the department to file its response before further consideration.
The Kerala High Court held that the non obstante clause in Section 16(5) prevails over the time limit prescribed under Section 16(4) for claiming ITC. The Court quashed the denial order and directed reconsideration of the taxpayer’s claim.
The Court set aside the refund rejection after finding that the appellate authority failed to record specific findings or provide adequate reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that a general penalty under Section 125 of the TNGST Act cannot be imposed when a specific late fee has already been levied. The Court partly allowed the writ petition and directed payment of the applicable late fee.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to entertain challenges to GST adjudication orders because a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. The Court held that disputed findings on service tax liability should be examined by the appellate authority.
The High Court condoned a 720-day delay in filing a GST appeal after finding that severe financial difficulties and circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control caused the delay. The appeal was directed to be heard on merits.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after noting that the entire disputed tax liability had already been recovered. The taxpayer was allowed to submit additional documents and explanations.
The Karnataka High Court set aside GST registration cancellation after finding that the taxpayer was in custody and unable to respond to the show cause notice. The Court held that the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
The Delhi ITAT deleted an addition of ₹2.32 lakh on 40 grams of gold bullion after granting the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to relief considering the prescribed jewellery limits and supporting evidence.
ITAT held that substantive rights in the property arose through the allotment letter and payment of consideration. Therefore, the period of holding was to be counted from allotment, resulting in Long-Term Capital Gain treatment.
