The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order after the petitioner stated that notices were sent to a paid email account that became inaccessible due to subscription default. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration and GST registration was restored.
Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order after finding that the taxpayer was given only one day to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to file a reply.
ITAT Mumbai held that ad hoc disallowances based only on comparative analysis of turnover and expenditure are unsustainable without identifying defects in expense claims. The Tribunal deleted additions after finding that the assessee had submitted adequate supporting documents and explanations.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST arrest after finding that the authorities had complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and due procedure was followed.
NCLT Chandigarh ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor after the Committee of Creditors rejected the only resolution plan received during CIRP. The Tribunal held that requirements under Section 33 of the IBC had been fully satisfied.
The Karnataka High Court remitted GST proceedings after noting allegations that duplicate adjudication orders were passed for the same tax period on ITC mismatch issues. The Court directed fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
The Nagpur ITAT held that exemption under Section 54B requires evidence of active agricultural operations and not merely agricultural classification in revenue records. The assessee’s failure to produce supporting evidence led to denial of exemption.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) cannot be collected on compounding fees recovered from illegal miners. The Court ruled that the provision applies only to lawful lease holders, licence holders, or contractual mining rights holders.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease holders, licence holders, or persons granted mining rights. Compounding fees collected from illegal miners were held outside its scope.
