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.
The Bombay High Court set aside a penalty order under Section 271-D after finding that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decisions. The Court followed established precedents and allowed the writ petition.
The Tribunal found that CBDT notifications issued under TOLA extended the period for departmental actions, including rectification proceedings, thereby saving the order from being time-barred.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the six-year limitation period under the unamended law expired on 31.03.2022. Since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 23.04.2022, it was time-barred. The reassessment proceedings and consequential assessment order were therefore quashed.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a ₹14.20 crore addition under Section 68, holding that the AO relied on old search findings and failed to bring any direct evidence against the assessee’s loan transactions.
The petitioner challenged GST assessment orders alleging procedural and natural justice violations. The High Court held that no exceptional circumstances were established to bypass the appellate remedy under Section 107. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a challenge to a GST show cause notice and adjudication order because an appeal remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court allowed the petitioner to raise all legal and factual grounds before the appellate authority.
The Supreme Court took up a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act where ITC was denied despite tax having been paid by the immediate supplier. The case raises the issue of whether a recipient can be penalized for alleged default by a supplier further up the supply chain.
The Supreme Court prima facie observed that Section 67(4) permits sealing of premises only when access is denied. It issued notice and sought instructions from the Department on the taxpayer’s request for de-sealing.
The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere with GST search, sealing, and attachment actions after finding that the taxpayer had not utilized the remedies available under the CGST Act. The Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when effective statutory remedies exist.
