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.
The High Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax despite the address discrepancy in the invoice. It directed refund of the penalty collected from the petitioner.
The Court held that the proceedings should have been conducted under Section 129(1)(a) since the petitioner was the owner of the goods. The detention order was quashed and fresh action was directed on the basis of invoice valuation.
ITAT Delhi held that high sea sales could not be treated as non-genuine where customs approvals, sale agreements, and delivery records established the transactions. The Tribunal deleted the ₹59.11 crore addition and ruled that Section 68 could not apply to recovery of sale consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the dismissal of a GST appeal that was rejected due to a 451-day delay. Relying on an earlier coordinate bench ruling, the Court remanded the matter for consideration on merits.
The Supreme Court examined whether online gaming platforms offering skill-based games can be treated as suppliers of actionable claims arising from betting and gambling. The case also involved challenges to GST demands, valuation rules, and the constitutional validity of various GST provisions.
Supreme Court held that States can regulate or prohibit betting on skill games, ruling that Entry 34 extends to all forms of betting and gambling.
The Tribunal held that a genuine and reasonable explanation for delay justified condonation of nearly three years. It emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical limitations when no mala fide intent is established.
