The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside an Appellate Authority’s order by clarifying the calculation of the four-month limitation period for filing a GST appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment confirms that the first day is excluded, the period is calculated in ‘months’ (not days), and the corresponding date rule applies, validating an appeal filed on the last day of the extended grace period.
The case challenged the sustained addition of purchases solely because the supplier, though having active ITC, failed to respond to a tax notice or was inactive on the GST portal. The Tribunal ruled the entire addition unsustainable, noting the purchases were supported by bank payments, invoices, and stock records. The key takeaway is that the non-cooperation of a supplier or an inactive GST status alone is not sufficient to treat purchases as unexplained expenditure.
Jharkhand High Court dismisses bail in case of fraudulent availment and passing of fake GST Input Tax Credit, holding the offence as a serious crime affecting national economic health.
Karnataka High Court confirms that secured creditors can recover dues from property before GST claims if their SARFAESI Act charge predates the GST encumbrance, ensuring proper auction proceedings.
Commissioner of Customs Vs Sudhir Gulati (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that DRI are proper officers for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and accordingly has been empowered to issue demand notice under section 28. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed. Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the […]
Bombay High Court held that Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exceed mandate of Section 144C(13) or act contrary to Dispute Resolution Panel’s directions. It further ruled that any assessment completed beyond prescribed time limit under Section 144C(13) is time-barred and invalid.
ITAT Delhi ruled that the sale of cybersecurity software does not constitute rendering of technical services. Accordingly, such transactions are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a tax demand raised due to a typographical or inadvertent error, without any malafide intention, is invalid. Tribunal observed that assessee should not suffer unnecessary hardship for bona fide mistakes.
ITAT Hyderabad held that once a moratorium is imposed under IBC, Income Tax Department cannot recover dues from corporate debtor. However, proceedings to determine tax liability may continue under IBC and Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Delhi ruled that IBBI has no authority to issue a general circular under Section 34(4)(b) recommending appointment of insolvency professionals other than IRP/RP as liquidator, reaffirming limits on IBBI’s regulatory powers.
