Practical checklists and clear explanations for individuals, professionals and businesses.
The Delhi High Court protected the right of appeal by holding that a new and more onerous 10% pre-deposit condition could not govern penalty proceedings initiated before the amendment took effect.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Bhandari Scrap Traders SLPs and upheld the Gujarat High Court view that Section 16(2)(c) cannot be struck down or read down for supplier tax default.
In Narasimham Palanki v. ITO, Hyderabad ITAT held that Section 271D penalty proceedings could not begin independently when no assessment or other proceeding was pending and no satisfaction had been recorded.
NCLAT declined to interfere with an NCLT order allowing amended pleadings concerning share-register rectification and later changes to the Articles of Association, while preserving every limitation objection.
The Telangana High Court declined premature interference with a GST show-cause notice on royalty, while preserving the taxpayer's right to contest the levy before the proper officer and after adjudication.
Bombay High Court restrained coercive recovery against Raj Builders while the constitutional challenge concerning GST on flats transferred to landowners remains pending.
Telangana High Court did not examine the GST dispute on merits because an effective Section 112 appeal was available before the constituted GST Appellate Tribunal.
Telangana High Court directed the GST authority to accept a physical revocation application where the portal blocked online filing after registration cancellation for non-filing of returns.
Rajasthan High Court restored the GST appeal of Kartik Oil Industries HUF after finding that the adverse appellate order was passed without an effective opportunity of hearing.
Patna High Court refused to quash a GST demand where the taxpayer gave an undertaking, secured release of bank restrictions and later alleged duress without contemporaneous protest.
Karnataka High Court stayed the challenged GST adjudication order while examining whether Section 74 proceedings could continue after prior ITC reversal, interest and penalty calculation.
Chennai ITAT gave the assessee another opportunity to prove agricultural income claimed under Section 10(1) and restored two ex parte appeals to the CIT(A).
