The High Court declined to retain the writ once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational. The dispute was directed to be resolved through the statutory appellate mechanism.
Tribunal held that amounts deposited during investigation are revenue deposits, not duty, and directed payment of 12% interest as compensation from date of deposit till refund.
The issue was whether the AO could expand a limited scrutiny assessment into a complete scrutiny without approval. The ITAT held that such expansion is invalid without prior PCIT sanction.
The Court found that confiscation based solely on surplus stock found during survey lacks legal basis. The tax authority was directed to decide the matter afresh after hearing the taxpayer.
The High Court held that company land cannot be attached under PMLA merely because accused persons are shareholders. Shareholding does not confer ownership over corporate assets.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated on vague and borrowed satisfaction. It held that absence of a live link between information and the assessee’s case invalidated the notice.
The High Court held that GST demands for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan cannot survive once the plan is sanctioned under the IBC. Past statutory dues not forming part of the plan stand extinguished and cannot be enforced.
The High Court stayed a ₹512 crore GST demand after finding prima facie issues with a notice covering multiple financial years. The matter will be heard alongside similar pending cases.
The dispute involved alleged non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment procedure rendering the order non est. The ITAT held that remanding without ruling on section 144B(9) violations is impermissible.
The ITAT corrected its earlier order after noting that the liberty to reopen completed assessments under sections 147/148 was omitted. The ruling clarifies that absence of incriminating material bars search additions but not lawful reassessment.
