The High Court set aside a tax demand that exceeded the amount stated in the show-cause notice, holding it violative of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that authorities failed to conduct basic enquiries before alleging reuse of transport documents. The seizure and appellate orders were quashed as unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court held that freezing of a company’s bank accounts without a proper investigation violated natural justice. Interim relief allowed the petitioner to operate accounts while maintaining a minimum balance.
ITAT Hyderabad held that ad hoc disallowance of commission expense cannot be sustained since assessee has substantiated commission payment with relevant evidence. Further, mere non-submission of certain bills and vouchers cannot be reason for ad hoc disallowance of land and development expenditure.
The Court found the appellate authority’s rejection of delay condonation mechanical and set aside the cancellation order, allowing revival upon fulfilling conditions.
The ITAT quashed the entire reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, observing that the foundational notice was issued after the permissible date. The ruling underscores that procedural timelines under TOLA cannot be extended retroactively. Subsequent orders based on the invalid notice were held without jurisdiction.
Tribunal ruled that confiscation cannot be sustained when goods were re-exported before Revenue’s appeal, restoring the original order.
The Court set aside the GST demand after finding that the show cause notice and order lacked reasons and no meaningful opportunity of hearing was provided.
The AO’s assessment included detailed examination of depreciation, warranty provisions, and Section 80G deductions for CSR donations. ITAT Ahmedabad found that the AO’s conclusions were plausible and in line with judicial precedents. The revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, affirming that the AO’s order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue.
The Court quashed multiple notices and assessment orders for AY 2018-19, holding that procedural requirements under Section 151A were not met, while preserving Revenue’s right to revive proceedings.
