The Allahabad High Court ruled that a GST penalty under section 129(3) cannot be imposed for non-filing of Part-B of an e-way bill caused by a technical glitch without intent to evade tax.
ITAT rules that assessments under section 144 without proper section 148 notice are void when returns are filed late, affirming taxpayer procedural rights.
ITAT found that reopening relied on wrong bank deposits, incorrect assessee details, and a mechanical sanction under section 151. The reassessment under sections 144/147 and the ₹15 lakh unexplained cash addition were deleted.
The Court quashed the order rejecting the condonation of delay, emphasizing that human error and professional reliance justify acceptance of late audit filings.
Court held that a legal representative’s liability is limited to inherited assets and set aside attachment because no evidence showed petitioner inherited property from firm’s partners.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 130 could not be invoked for excess stock found during survey. Orders were set aside and refund directed.
Tribunal held that civil, plumbing and electrical charges paid to builder formed part of the acquisition cost and allowed claim. It held that embedded fixtures qualify for deduction, while travel expenses unrelated to transfer do not.
The Court set aside a suspension issued for not acting against a bogus GST firm, noting the officer was on sanctioned leave and later transferred. The ruling permits inquiry proceedings to continue but removes the suspension.
The Court confirmed that the Joint Commissioner could not rectify another authority’s order under Section 74, and the petitioner must use statutory appeal mechanisms.
The Court held that the impugned GST notice and adjudication orders suffered from multiple legal defects and quashed them. Authorities can issue a fresh notice, with limitation suspended for the contested period.
