The Orissa High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became functional, the taxpayer should pursue the statutory appeal remedy. The Court directed compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8) before filing the appeal.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the 90-day period prescribed under Section 101(2) for deciding GST advance ruling appeals is directory and does not cause automatic lapse of proceedings. The Court allowed departmental appeals to proceed on merits.
The Madras High Court permitted the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal despite the assessment and rectification orders. The relief was granted subject to an additional pre-deposit and compliance with specified conditions.
The High Court set aside the tax demand after finding that refunds had been granted and appellate relief accepted on the same facts for other periods. The key takeaway is that inconsistent treatment without distinction in facts or law cannot be sustained.
The High Court held that a show cause notice could not survive when a binding Advance Ruling on the same issue had neither been challenged nor declared void. The notice was therefore quashed as lacking legal foundation.
The dispute concerned whether coal transportation between mines and industrial facilities could be taxed as mining service. CESTAT held that the activity was transportation by road and, in the absence of consignment notes, fell under the Negative List and was not liable to service tax.
The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscious claim of exemption and refund amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty.
The Tribunal found that bank documents showing repayment of the loan were relevant for deciding the Section 68 issue. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The High Court held that service of notices through the registered e-mail address and mobile number satisfied statutory requirements. The assessee’s failure to update contact details or participate in proceedings could not invalidate the assessment.
The Gujarat High Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in a GIDC plot constitutes transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and not a supply of service. Consequently, the GST demand under Section 74 was set aside.
