Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has deemed a GST assessment under Section 62 withdrawn due to delayed returns and payment of late fees.
The Gauhati High Court has quashed a GST order denying input tax credit (ITC), affirming that a timely return submission falls within the provisions of Section 16(5).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that merely uploading GST notices on the common portal does not constitute valid service.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a contractor's claim for differential GST reimbursement from the employer is not maintainable in a writ petition.
The Telangana High Court has permitted the rectification of a GST order concerning discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-8 turnover submissions.
The Telangana High Court has allowed a two-week period for taxpayers to appeal against a GST order and has stayed any coercive recovery actions during this time.
The Madras High Court has confirmed the validity of an assessment against an assessee who failed to disclose an amalgamation, rejecting the challenge based on having an effective alternate remedy.
The ITAT Kolkata has quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the underlying assessment was determined to be jurisdictionally invalid, establishing significant precedence for collateral penalty proceedings.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled in favor of the State Bank of India, deleting a TDS demand under Section 201 relating to leave travel concession (LTC). The tribunal found that the bank was not in default due to interim directions from the Madras High Court.
The ITAT has allowed a taxpayer to resolve a tax dispute involving the addition of over Rs. 11.22 crore on the condition of planting 500 trees. This unique approach highlights environmental considerations in tax relief.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an employee cannot be penalized for their employer's failure to deduct tax at source, reaffirming principles under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act. This decision emphasizes that tax liability cannot be shifted from an employer to an employee when tax obligations were not fulfilled by the employer.
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a regular criminal court does not have the authority to order the release of goods seized under the Customs Act, specifically under Section 110A.