The GST Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, has ordered Merit Magnum Construction to refund Rs. 2,67,114, including GST, to eligible homebuyers for not passing on input tax credit benefits under Section 171 of the CGST Act, along with 18% interest.
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) after finding that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate a jurisdictional challenge regarding non-compliance with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that such jurisdictional issues, which go to the root of the matter, must be addressed by the ITAT.
The Gauhati High Court has held that the ‘reason to believe’ recorded by the Authorized Officer under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for issuing a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) need not be kept confidential or excluded from the PAO itself. The Court found no jurisdictional error in including such reasons in the PAO and referred the issue to a larger bench for judicial consistency.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that any show cause notice or order issued under the CGST Act against a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is void ab initio. The Court clarified that such proceedings lack jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order, while leaving open the possibility of fresh proceedings against the amalgamated entity if permitted by law.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a GST demand order, ruling that uploading show cause notices solely under the ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the GST portal without proper communication constitutes insufficient service and violates principles of natural justice. The Court directed authorities to provide the taxpayer an opportunity to respond and re-adjudicate the matter.
The Karnataka High Court has held that when a registered person mistakenly pays IGST instead of CGST/KGST, Section 77(2) of the CGST/KGST Act, read with Rule 92 of the GST Rules, precludes the imposition of interest or penalty. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, directing authorities to adjust the tax and issue orders accordingly.
The Madras High Court has held that show cause notices invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the GST Enactments are valid where foundational facts indicating fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax are present, particularly when such findings arise from scrutiny under Section 61. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the notices within thirty days.
The Madras High Court has ruled that the Central Government is bound by the recommendations of the GST Council when issuing notifications under Sections 9 and 11 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court further clarified that the GST Council does not possess the statutory power to ratify notifications post facto, declaring such ratification ultra vires.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that disputes regarding reimbursement of GST under a contract, which involve disputed questions of fact and law and are governed by an arbitration clause, are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision declining to entertain the writ petition and directed the parties to pursue arbitration.
The Madras High Court has held that the threshold for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the GST Enactments is lower than under previous indirect tax laws. The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging GST assessment orders, finding prima facie suppression of facts and intention to evade tax, and directed the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.
The Madras High Court has clarified that, under Section 93 of the CGST Act, authorities may initiate fresh assessment proceedings against legal heirs of a deceased taxable person, even if no proceedings were initiated during the deceased’s lifetime and the business has been discontinued. However, the liability of legal heirs is limited to the extent of the estate inherited.
The Karnataka High Court has held that where tender documents expressly require bids to be quoted exclusive of GST, bidders must comply strictly with such terms. The Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited to examining arbitrariness or illegality, and will not extend to correcting bidders’ mistakes or subjective misunderstandings of clear tender conditions.
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable on rental transactions cannot be included in the calculation of rental value for the purpose of determining stamp duty under Article 30(iii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The Court directed authorities to refund the stamp duty collected on the GST component.
The Karnataka High Court has held that the obligation to reimburse contractors for incremental GST paid on works contracts executed under pre-GST regime lies solely with the contracting employer, not with the State or tax authorities. The Court set aside directions permitting revised GST returns or waiving statutory penalties, emphasizing adherence to statutory GST provisions.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a party cannot seek to recall a court order after having accepted and appropriated benefits flowing from it, invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. The Court emphasized that fairness and consistency require a litigant to fulfill obligations attached to benefits received under a judicial order.
