The High Court set aside a GST notice covering four tax periods in one proceeding. It held that Section 73 requires year-wise notices with separate limitation for each assessment year.
The High Court held that issuing a single GST show cause notice for more than one financial year is impermissible. Each financial year is a separate unit with its own limitation period.
The Court set aside a 3.5% TDS certificate after the PE finding relied upon by the Revenue was overturned by the ITAT. The earlier 1.5% rate was restored due to lack of legal foundation.
Allahabad High Court held that toll plaza receipts not mandatory for justifying actual physical movement of goods since e-way bill and tax invoice duly produced. Accordingly, order not justified in the eyes of law.
While search proceedings were still pending, the Court permitted release of seized jewellery and cash after petitioners deposited amounts against possible tax demand. No view was taken on merits of explanations.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act solely on the basis of material found by AO of searched person without satisfaction note as prescribed under section 153C is untenable in law.
Karnataka High Court held that clinical trial to foreign service recipients is not liable to tax under GST since the place of recipient of the services provided by the petitioner is outside the territory of India. Accordingly, present writ is allowed.
Chhattisgarh High Court allows the bail application in Rs. 4000 Crore liquor scam case in the absence of any distinguishing material against the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
Jharkhand High Court held that levy of electricity duty on the basis of ‘net charges’ as introduced by the 1st Amendment Act, 2021 is ultra vires to the Bihar Electricity Duty Act, 1948. Accordingly, 1st Amendment Act, 2021 and the Rules, 2021 are declared ultra vires to the Act, 1948.
The registrar penalised a company for failing to fill a woman director vacancy within the statutory timeline. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with board composition norms.
