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.
The Telangana High Court held that the arrest was supported by material collected during the investigation indicating involvement in alleged GST evasion and online gaming operations. The Court found no illegality in the exercise of arrest powers under the CGST Act.
The Allahabad High Court held that service of a GST show cause notice solely through the common portal is insufficient once registration has been cancelled. The adjudication order was quashed for violating principles of natural justice.
The Court held that the dispute involved a pure legal question regarding composite versus mixed supply. Finding a prima facie jurisdictional issue, it ruled that the writ petition was maintainable.
The Tribunal ruled that disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was beyond the permissible scope of prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1). Relief was granted to the assessee.
