Kerala High Court recalls its 2024 order after finding petitioner’s GST refund plea was wrongly linked to a batch case challenging Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act.
Madras High Court compels Assistant Commissioner (CT) to refund ₹1.14 Cr in excess VAT paid by Madhucon Projects for AY 2008-09, upholding the Single Judge’s order.
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a search assessment (Sec. 153A) because a search was never physically conducted on the assessee’s premises, ruling that a mere mention in a panchnama is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The key takeaway is that an assessment under Sec. 153A is void ab initio if an actual search on the person or property of the assessee is not initiated and conducted.
Delhi HC dismissed a writ challenging a ₹6.27 Cr GST demand, noting the firm’s two-year lifespan suggested fraudulent ITC intent. Court directed the firm to pursue the Section 107 statutory appeal.
ITAT condones 498-day delay & remands case for de novo assessment, ruling that a mere mistaken capital gains declaration by a previous representative doesn’t create tax liability. AO must verify if actual property transfer occurred, as documents show no sale.
NCLAT held that small disputed amounts below ₹1 crore do not justify Section 7 proceedings or penalties under Section 65 when debt is substantially repaid.
Supreme Court admits appeal by Tesco Bengaluru against CESTAT ruling on reverse charge service tax for seconded overseas employees, relying on the Northern Operating Systems precedent.
CESTAT Chennai rules Service Tax cannot be levied on the TDS amount paid by an Indian company on behalf of a foreign service provider, as TDS is not ‘consideration’ for the service.
This ruling invalidates an income tax addition that relied entirely on electronic data (an excel sheet) seized from a third party without the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The ITAT stressed that in the absence of corroborative evidence, clear linking of the assessee to the data, and providing due process, the addition made was illegal and unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Allahabad quashes Service Tax demand against a contractor, ruling that reliance solely on unverified ITR and Form 26AS data is insufficient and invalidates the extended limitation period.
