Court held that taxpayers whose GST registration stands cancelled cannot be expected to access e-notices, setting aside an order issued without physical service.
Summary of Agrawal Soya Extracts (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India where the MP High Court applied the Supreme Court’s Armour Security precedent, mandating GST authorities to decide on jurisdiction and prevent parallel investigations if a show cause notice is already issued on the same subject matter under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act must be paid from 60 days after the original refund application, even if the refund is granted later following an appellate order. The Court relied on Lupin Ltd., Ranbaxy Laboratories, and other precedents to reject the Revenue’s stand.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Azharuddin, accused of over ₹20 crore (Rs.2.4 million) in GST evasion through Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud, considering the completion of the investigation, the filing of the complaint, the maximum five-year sentence, and Supreme Court rulings on bail for economic offenses based on documentary evidence.
The ITAT Rajkot allowed a taxpayer’s appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)’s order which confirmed over Rs. 1.17 crore in tax additions. The Tribunal ruled that the lower authorities violated natural justice by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to explain disputed creditors and expense disallowances.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Casio India for AY 2017-18, upholding the deletion of a Transfer Pricing adjustment for AMP expenses. The court ruled that the issue was covered by prior judgments, which rejected the Bright Line Test methodology.
Gujarat AAAR rules that companies cannot claim GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) on share buyback expenses, as securities are neither goods nor services under GST law.
Punjab and Haryana High Court rules the time spent on a GST rectification application under Section 161 must be excluded from the appeal limitation period under Section 107, setting aside an appeal’s dismissal based on delay.
Karnataka High Court rules that duty on capital goods imported by an EOU is not leviable if the goods are installed and used for manufacturing, even if the export obligation is unfulfilled. Penalties under Section 112(a) are also invalidated.
The petitioner challenging GST orders was directed to comply with Trade Circular 13 August 2024 for interim protection; constitutional claims on Section 16(2)(c) can be raised only after exhausting remedies before the future GST Tribunal.
