This half-yearly round-up analytically summarizes the key Direct and Indirect Tax Judgments of the Supreme Court and all High Courts of India reported at Taxscan.in during the First half of 2024.
The Kerala High Court quashed re-assessment order under the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the matter regarding the denial of virtual hearing on ground that it was not in prescribed form. The court observed that the form in which the virtual hearing has to be subscribed is a matter of procedure and not a substantive law. The procedure is always handmade for doing the complete justice between the parties. Procedure cannot take away the substantive right of a person, if the person is otherwise eligible for substantive right of personal hearing.
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner for availing the opportunity of personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court held that the sanctioning authority should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ( PCCIT ) for issuing reopening notice after expiry of 3 years. The court noted that the impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 20th July 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT-27, Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-2018 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 20th July 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Delhi High Court has set aside the Competition Commission of Indiaâs (CCIâs) order, stating that failure to adhere to notice provisions incurs liability for penal interest. The bench noted that there being no notice of demand, it was held that the liability to pay penal interest did not arise. It is necessary to emphasize that this was not a case of payment of interest at the ordinary statutory rate but a case of penal interest and therefore, that the Act provided that the liability to pay the same arises only after there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of a notice on that behalf.
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition by directing the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ( JCIT ) to supply a copy of certificate of exemption under Section 12 A of Income Tax Act, 1961. The bench allowed the petition by directing the respondents to supply a copy of a certificate of exemption under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act to the petitioner/Trust and to also accord all benefits arising therefrom to it. Accordingly, the petition was accordingly allowed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued an interim order staying a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) concerning the tax treatment of corporate guarantees exchanged between related parties. The bench granted an interim stay on the effect and operation of Item No.2 of the impugned Circular dated October 27, 2023.
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to contest the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand on pre-deposit condition in the matter where the petitioner failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and attend the personal hearing on grounds of diagnosis of cancer. The court observed that the tax proposal had been confirmed solely on grounds of the petitionerâs non-response and absence at the personal hearing. Considering the petitionerâs medical condition and the principles of justice, the court deemed it appropriate to afford the petitioner a chance to present their case.
The Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order issued completely on a different basis from the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The court ordered fresh proceedings. The court addressed a significant disparity between a tax order and the initial show cause notice, leading to the decisionâs annulment.
The court emphasized that if the tax authority intended to amend the tax assessment following the petitionerâs response, issuing a fresh show cause notice was imperative.
The Madras High Court ordered the customs department to provide the certified copy of order in original rejecting the Departmentâs plea of previous service.The court emphasised the importance of transparency and access to legal documents. It noted that even if a certified copy had been previously served, the respondents could easily verify and provide evidence of such service. Hence, there was no impediment to furnishing another copy to the petitioner.
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the onus of inquiry regarding non-remittance of Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) to the state treasury falls upon the seller, particularly in cases where the service recipient has already fulfilled their payment obligations unless in exceptional circumstances as clarified in the press release issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( CBIC ). The bench observed that the authority acknowledged the payment of tax by the appellant to the supplier, but noted that it hadnât been remitted to the state exchequer. In such a scenario, the elementary principle dictates that the authority should conduct an inquiry with the supplier before penalising the appellant. Failing to do so would be arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
The Madras High Court overturned an appellate order and directed the Deputy Commissioner ( ST ) ( GST ) (Appeals) to adjudicate the appeal, despite a delay of 21 days in its filing. The courtâs decision came in response to the petitionerâs contention that the GST proposal had been confirmed under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Act without fulfilling the necessary criteria stipulated by the section.
The court set aside the appellate order and directed the 2nd respondent â Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST)(Appeals) to receive and adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner on its merits, without delving into the question of limitation.
The Madras High Court directed the 10% pre-deposit condition for challenging the order where the petitioner lacked Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) proceedings on discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 2A as notices uploaded in Additional Notices and Orders Tab of GST portal. The court recognized the gravity of the situation, emphasising the necessity of affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand. It was noted that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitionerâs failure to respond to the show cause notice.
The petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the specified period and the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the receipt of the petitionerâs reply.
The Madras High Court remanded the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand for reconsideration on 10% pre-deposit condition as rectification was filed on error in reporting outward supplies and Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court noted that the tax proposal was confirmed due to the petitionerâs failure to file objections to the show cause notice or attend a personal hearing. In light of the rectification made by the petitioner, the court deemed it just to remand the matter for reconsideration, subject to the condition of remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the receipt of the courtâs order.
The Madras High Court set aside the order confirming Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) liability on non-response to Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) as the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings due to complete bed rest on advice of doctor. The court observed that the tax proposals arose from discrepancies between the petitionersâ GSTR 3B returns and Form 26AS. The proposals were confirmed due to the petitionersâ failure to respond to the show cause notices. However, considering the contention regarding exemptions and the circumstances leading to the petitionerâs inability to contest the tax demands, the court deemed it just and necessary to provide them with an opportunity to do so.
The Madras High Court allowed the petitioner to contest the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) Liability on a pre-deposit of 10% of disputed tax demand. The bench observed that the liability was confirmed due to non-response to Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) as it was uploaded in the GST portal. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to submit replies to the show cause notices within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing and issue fresh orders within three months of receiving the petitionerâs replies.
The Madras High Court observed that the retrospective date to apply for the Settlement before the Interim Board for Settlement under Section 245C(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be March 31, 2021 and not 1st February 2021. The bench had ruled that applications for cases arising between 01.02.2021 and 31.03.2021 should be deemed pending. This decision was reiterated in a subsequent judgment of the Division Bench in Ashwini Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors., dated 26.03.2024. The Board was directed to expedite the proceedings, preferably within three months from the date of receiving the Courtâs order.
The Madras High Court granted the petitioner the opportunity to contest a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand, provided they make a 10% pre-deposit. This decision arised from a situation where the petitionerâs accountant overlooked GST notices uploaded in the âview additional notices and ordersâ tab on the GST portal. The bench set aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 on the condition that the petitioner remits 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks from the date of receipt of the courtâs order.
The Madras High Court has granted another opportunity to the petitioner to explain the unreconciled turnover as they possess relevant documents on a pre-deposit condition of Rs. 50 lakhs. The court observed that the tax proposal concerns unreconciled turnover, noting the absence of response to the show cause notice. Recognizing the petitionerâs claim of possessing relevant documents on unreconciled turnover, the court deemed it just to afford another opportunity, albeit with conditions, considering the petitionerâs prior non-engagement. The petitioner was permitted to submit a reply to the show cause notice within the same period, enclosing all relevant documents.
The Madras High Court sets aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order issued on the same date of issuance of Show Cause Notice ( SCN ). Further directed the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. The court found merit in the contention that a reasonable opportunity was not provided due to the concurrent issuance of the SCN and the impugned order. Consequently, the Court deemed the impugned order unsustainable.
The Madras High Court directed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) department to dispose of the Rectification Petition within 1 Month as the petitioner correctly submitted the reconciled GSTR 2A and GSTR 3B. The bench disposed of the writ petition by instructing the respondent to consider and dispose of the rectification petition dated March 12, 2024, through a comprehensive order. The respondent has been directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner within 1 month.
The Delhi High Court has quashed a Customs Circular and Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) that imposed restrictions on the establishment of Solar Power Plants under the Manufacturing and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) License as per Section 65 of the Customs Act. The court observed that the activities undertaken by the writ petitioners are in aid of the objective of the country transitioning towards renewable energy sources so as to meet the targets of switching to a cleaner energy source. It was remarked that, the construction of a statute cannot be guided or influenced by the subsequent experience of the executive or of discerned inequitable results.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking the postponement of the Chartered Accountancy ( CA ) Intermediate and Final Examinations amidst concerns over the potential clashes with the upcoming Lok Sabha General Elections. The court ruled against rescheduling the exams, emphasising the need to maintain the integrity of the examination schedule despite individual hardships faced by some candidates.
The Madras High Court has set aside a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order, specifically addressing a discrepancy in Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ) liability. The court took into account the petitionerâs argument regarding inadvertent errors in filing GSTR 3B returns, prompting a remand of the matter for further consideration.
The court instructed the first respondent- Deputy State Tax Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within three months from the receipt of the petitionerâs reply. It was clarified that the amounts appropriated in relation to the RCM liability mismatch would abide by the outcome of the remand.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that proceedings or prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act ( PMLA ) cannot be sustained if the accused has been acquitted in the predicate offence. The court also directed the release of attached properties on the observation that the offence of money laundering is dependent on the proceeds of crime generated from a scheduled offence.
The division bench asserted that the continuation of PMLA proceedings against the petitioner was legally untenable and also held that there is no infirmity in the order issued by the Special Judge whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released.
The judgment stressed the fundamental principle of legal jurisprudence that no person should be subjected to double jeopardy. It sets an important precedent that will guide future cases involving the interpretation of laws related to financial crimes.
The Allahabad High Court held that disciplinary actions cannot be nullified based solely on concerns or assumptions of potential prejudice to the accused employee. The court highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence of prejudice rather than mere apprehensions or suspicions and underscored that prejudice must be demonstrable as a factual reality or there must be clear indications of potential prejudice arising from specific statutory violations.
A series of writ petitions concerning the import of second-hand digital multifunction printing and copying machines were addressed by the Madras High Court where the court ordered the release of the machines on payment of enhanced customs duty. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitionersâ request for provisional release of the goods, provided the petitioners paid or deposited the enhanced duty amount. Upon receipt of the enhanced duty payment, the goods in question would be released within three weeks.
The Madras High Court has issued a directive for the reconsideration of a case concerning the confirmation of tax liability due to a discrepancy between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns. This decision stems from the petitionerâs lack of awareness of GST proceedings until the entire tax liability was recovered from their bank account. The bench observed that the tax liability arises from a discrepancy between the GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns. Notably, the tax proposal was confirmed without the petitionerâs participation, and the entire liability was realised by appropriating funds from their bank account, ensuring full revenue interest. The court deemed it just and appropriate to afford the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax demand on its merits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Bombay High Court has held that reopening of Income Tax assessment on the sole basis of change of opinion is invalid when the same is barred by limitation. The court thus noted that, once the notice has been treated as having been issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, the said notice is no longer relevant for the purpose of determining the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 or the restriction as per the first proviso below Section 149 of the Act. Thus, it was held that the question of applicability of the sixth proviso does not arise on the facts of the case and concluded that the impugned notice is clearly barred by the law of limitation.
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the government over non-adjudication of Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) and impugned Income order for 11 years and 9.5 years respectively. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Principal Commissioner, in issuing the impugned order, incorrectly shifted the burden onto the assessee to prove the absence of delay on the departmentâs part.
The case is listed for further proceedings on 14.05.2024, as per the request.
The Delhi High Court overturned a demand order, citing the failure of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) proper officer to consider the taxpayerâs response, thus indicating a lack of due diligence. The bench observed that despite the fact that petitioner has filed a reply, the Proper Officer has held that neither he has filed a proper reply nor appeared for a hearing which ex-facie shows that the Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner.
The court ruled that the impugned order dated 05.12.2023 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The Show Cause Notice was remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
The Court clarified that it has refrained from deliberating on or expressing opinions regarding the merits of the arguments presented by either party. All rights and contentions put forth by the parties remain reserved for further examination.
The Delhi High Court was approached seeking a directive for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI ) to consider their application for the release of seized gold bars/cutting bars. The court directed disposal within 1 week. The DRI seized the gold over lack of invoices and bills with the consignment.
The High Court of Telangana has clarified that the GST Authority does not have the power to issue orders for the insertion of a negative balance in the credit ledger of taxpayers. This verdict came as a result of a writ petition filed by Laxmi Fine Chem against the Assistant Commissioner challenging the blocking of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 50.06 lakhs for the period from February 1 to February 13, 2024.
The court observed that Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, stipulates that only the blocking of available input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner is permissible and observed that, the action on the part of the respondents in passing an order of negative credit to be contrary to Rule 86(A).
The Jharkhand High Court has held that any unjust withholding of money or property from another party goes against the fundamental principles of justice, fairness, and good conscience and directed JBVNL to refund Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ). The Court has imposed a substantial penalty of Rs 5 Lacs on the Managing Director of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL) for engaging in unnecessary litigation and presenting frivolous defences. The Court ruled in accordance with clause 10.7.4 of the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Ranchi (Electricity Supply Code) Regulation, 2015, stating that the interest rate applicable to any excess amount paid by the consumer should match the interest rate charged by the consumer on delayed payment surcharges.
The Madras High Court ruled that the demand in the computation sheet and the demand notice cannot be sustained if the income tax assessment order did not propose any additions. The bench quashed the computation sheet demand and demand notice. During proceedings, the petitionerâs counsel highlighted the absence of any proposed additions in the assessment order and pointed out glaring errors in the computation sheet and demand notice.
The court noted that no additions were intended regarding the issues outlined in the order. Consequently, the demand specified in the computation sheet and demand notice was deemed unjustifiable and was set aside.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax department to open the portal for the petitioner. The bench quashed the assessment order adding Rs. 16 crores as unexplained expenditure without providing reasonable time to explain.
The court observed show cause notice calls upon the petitioner to show cause on or before 20.03.2024 by enclosing all supporting documents such as bills, vouchers and bank statements. The court set aside the assessment order remanding the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court overturned the rejection of the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) refund application due to the Discrepancies between Inverted Turnover and GSTR 1, 3B and 2A. The court found procedural discrepancies in the rejection order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The court noted that the respondent should have examined the application in accordance with Section 54 of applicable GST enactments, the rules framed thereunder and the Circular referred to above.
The Madras High Court directed the taxpayer to regard the Order as a Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) due to officersâ direct replication of audit observations without adequate adjudication or consideration of the assessee into the SCN and GSTR DRC-07.
The court observed that the identical language in both the show cause notice and the impugned order indicated that audit observations were directly transposed into the show cause notice and subsequently adopted as conclusions in the impugned order. The court concluded that the adjudication process must be objective and without predetermination.
The Madras High Court directed the assessing officer to rectify the Income Tax Assessment order with regards to the sale consideration based on the District Valuation Officerâs ( DVO ) report. The validity of an assessment order has been called into question due to a confirmed variation concerning the variance between the sale consideration of an immovable property, as stated in the relevant conveyance deed, and the guideline value.
The court added that the petitioner must be afforded a reasonable opportunity, and the assessing officer is mandated to pass an order on the rectification application within three months from the date of receiving a copy of this order.
The Madras High Court condoned the delay of 927 days. The court considered the failure to file the Income Tax Returns ( ITR ) on grounds of illness and subsequent demise of the CA of the petitioner as genuine hardship. This writ petition challenged the rejection of an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Consequently, the order dated 23.02.2024 was annulled by a Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy and the delay in filing the return for assessment year 2020-21 was condoned.
The Supreme Court made a significant ruling that advocates cannot be held liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as re-enacted in 2019) for deficiency of services. The Court held that professionals should be treated differently from individuals engaged in business and trade. The Court emphasized that lawyers appearing in court or before different forums may require distinct treatment from those sought for legal services such as opinions, consultations, and agreement drafting.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the labelling or re-labelling or putting additional labels to the containers amounted to âManufactureâ for Cenvat Credit and rebate under Central Excise Act, 1944. The apex court, by this ruling, stopped the recovery of Rs. 36,24,84,120.
The apex court noted that âmanufactureâ includes any process incidental or ancillary to completing a manufactured product, any process specified in the Section or Chapter notes of the Central Excise Tariff Act as manufacturing, or any process involving packing, repacking, labelling, re-labelling, or altering the retail sale price to make the product marketable to consumers, as specified in the Third Schedule.
The Supreme Court made several critical observations regarding the powers and procedures related to arrests by GST (Goods and Services Tax) officers recently. The context of these observations arose during the hearing of petitions challenging penal provisions across various acts. A significant part of the discussion revolved around the absence of private complainants under the GST Act and the importance of having concrete and verifiable material before initiating arrests. The court stressed the significance of basing conclusions on evidence rather than mere suspicion before taking any coercive action.
The Supreme Court has listed the Special Leave Petition ( SLP ) filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence ( DGGI ) against the Gameskraft Technologies Private Ltd challenging the Karnataka High Courtâs decision on July 15, 2024 alongwith the transferred cases. The bench quashed the GST Show-Cause Notice against the Gameskraft which had imposed Rs. 21,000 Crore at 28% GST on online gaming services provided to gamers.
The Supreme Court, while granting relief to EMBIO Ltd ruled that penalty cannot be imposed under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 for not fulfilling the export obligation. The Section applies only when there is an allegation of making an export or import in contravention of the export and import policy.
The supreme court identified a critical error in the judgments of both the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge regarding the withdrawal of the initial Writ Petition filed by Karnataka Biotics. Furthermore, the apex court scrutinised the circumstances surrounding the imposition of penalties. The appellantâs predecessor, Karnataka Biotics, was obligated to export goods to fulfil conditions outlined in the licence, failing which penalties were imposed.
The Madras High Court quashed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) assessment orders issued without considering the interim reply submitted by the petitioner/taxpayer. The court directed the GST officers to take up the matter for reconsideration.
The bench sets aside the orders for reconsideration, allowing the petitioner 15 days to submit a final reply. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue fresh orders within four months of receiving the final reply. If the final reply isnât filed within 15 days, the respondent granted the liberty to proceed based on the previously submitted interim reply.
The Madras High Court nullified a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) DRC-07 order issued disregarding the assesseeâs submitted reply. The challenge to an order dated 29.12.2023 arised from the petitionerâs contention that their responses to the Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) were disregarded. Following an audit, a SCN was issued on 27.09.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 26.10.2023. The court noted that the petitionerâs responses were not duly considered, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. Accordingly, the court set aside and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court orders pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed demand to nullify the contested order. The courtâs decision came in light of the assesseeâs non-participation in the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) proceedings, resulting in the confirmation of liability along with a hefty 100% penalty. The court noted that the GST proposal related to the purchase of a motor vehicle, accompanied by a 100% penalty was confirmed due to the non-participation in GST proceedings.
The Madras High Court mandated a pre-deposit of 10% to contest the discrepancy of Goods and Services Tax Returns ( GSTR 1 ) and GSTR 3B. The petitionerâs contention arises from a notice in Form GST ASMT 10 issued on 24.05.2023, followed by a show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 and a subsequent reminder.
The court set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2023 and the matter was remanded for reconsideration, contingent upon the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within two weeks.
The Madras High Court held that the documents such as GSTR 9, GSTR 9C, and Income Tax records alone are insufficient to establish that Goods Transport Services fall under the Reverse Charge Mechanism ( RCM ) category. The court noted the submission of GSTR 9, GSTR 9C, and income tax documents to substantiate that the Goods transport services fall within the scope of the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
The Madras High Court ordered a pre-deposit of 10% for contesting the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand which confirmed failure to respond to the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) proceedings as uploaded in the portal with respect to the GST returns disparity. The bench raised the bank account attachment as the order was set aside on pre-deposit condition.
The Madras High Court set aside the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) demand order which confirmed the demand claiming the Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) wrongly availed on the vehicle purchased for the commercial purposes. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court directed the refund of the recovered amount as the proper officer failed to explain the reason for recovering the amount under Section 78 of Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax, 2017 ( TNGST ) before the limitation period of 3 months. The court observed that the proviso to Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, may be invoked only if the proper officer records in writing the reason as to why he considers it expedient in the interest of the revenue to require the taxable person to make payment even before the expiry of the prescribed three month period. In the case in hand, no material has been placed on record to justify invoking the proviso to Section 78 of the applicable GST enactments.
The Madras High Court recently overturned a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) order, requiring a pre-deposit of 10%. The order had confirmed the tax liability based on alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) and failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice ( SN ). The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Madras High Court ruled that the Office Memorandum (Instruction No.1914) of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( CBDT ) does not mandate 20% remittance of the disputed tax for stay application. The bench noted that the appellate authority did not examine whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case.
The court noted that the grant of stay involves discretionary jurisdiction, and it does not sit in appeal over such discretion.
The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter on 10% Pre-deposit condition, observed that the taxpayers must regularly monitor the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) portal. The bench emphasised that as a registered entity under the relevant GST regulations, the petitioner bears the responsibility of regularly monitoring the GST portal.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
