Court emphasizes procedural compliance in PAN usage, quashing notice and order issued under surrendered PAN and ensuring proper reassessment steps.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court invalidated GST assessments where notices under Rule 142(1A) were not issued before assessment, emphasizing mandatory compliance prior to Oct 2020.
The Court held that goods moved as stock transfer could not be treated as sale and that technical mistakes in the e-way bill did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside, and the order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
The Court found the appellate authority’s rejection of delay condonation mechanical and set aside the cancellation order, allowing revival upon fulfilling conditions.
The Calcutta High Court held that statutory pre-deposit requirements cannot be retrospectively applied to appeals against penalty-only GST orders. The appeal was remanded for consideration without pre-deposit.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 201 were invalid because a binding interim order barred TDS on LTC payments. The ruling confirms that no default arises when deduction is judicially prohibited.
The Court held that a State Tax Officer’s suspension for delayed reporting was unjustified when an adverse report had already been submitted before the fraudulent ITC claim. The ruling clarifies that authorities must act on such reports and cannot shift responsibility to subordinate officers.
The Court held that the assessee could not join the scheduled virtual hearing because the link was not functional and the corrected link arrived too late. It set aside the order and directed fresh adjudication after proper hearing.
The Court held that a penalty under Section 129 was unsustainable where the e-way bill had been generated before the goods were detained. It ruled that no intention to evade tax could be inferred when the required document existed prior to interception.
