The High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration following the Supreme Court’s directions on the retrospective insertion of Section 147A. The assessee was granted liberty to challenge the amended provision.
The Tribunal sent the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication after the assessee challenged the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue relating to notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer was left open for reconsideration.
The Tribunal upheld the addition after finding that excess stock discovered during survey was physically verified and admitted by the assessee. The later retraction was rejected as unsupported and delayed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that screening and grading of iron ore are mining-related activities covered under the taxable category of Mining Services. The Tribunal ruled that such activities could not be classified as Business Auxiliary Service.
The Telangana High Court refused to quash a GST show cause notice, holding that the question whether annuity payments were exempt or taxable required detailed factual examination. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be conclusively decided in writ proceedings.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere at the show cause notice stage, holding that the dispute should be examined through adjudication proceedings. It left all GST exemption and circular-related issues open for determination by the authorities.
ITAT Amritsar held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the reopening was based on factually incorrect AIR information. The Tribunal ruled that failure to verify bank records before issuing notice showed non-application of mind.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer relied on factually incorrect assumptions regarding the filing of return and property purchase. The reopening was therefore quashed as unsustainable in law.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the Assessing Officer recorded incorrect facts regarding the return filing date and declared income. The Tribunal ruled that such defective reasons could not support a valid belief of escaped income.
Karnataka AAR disposed of the application after the applicant informed that GST demand orders on the same issue were already under appellate consideration. No ruling was given on the merits.
