The Calcutta High Court declined to interfere with an income tax assessment order, holding that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory appeal remedy is available. The Court directed the assessee to pursue the appellate process.
The Madras High Court examined repeated provisional attachment orders issued under Section 281B without detailed reasoning. The Court directed reconsideration of the attachment to enable the assessee to access working capital facilities.
GST reconciliation requires matching GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and Books of Account to detect errors in output tax and ITC claims. Identifying common reconciliation mistakes early helps taxpayers avoid interest, penalties, and audit scrutiny.
The law treats orders as communicated when served through any valid mode under Section 169, including e-mail, portal upload, or service on an advocate. Once proper service is proved, courts strictly enforce the 120-day limitation for filing GST appeals.
The Court held that merely earning higher profits by related concerns does not establish diversion of trust funds. Without evidence of undue benefit to specified persons, Section 13(1)(c) cannot be invoked.
Section 332 of the Income-tax law outlines who can apply for non-profit registration, the eligibility criteria, and the process required to obtain tax exemptions for charitable institutions.
RTI Act transformed governance by allowing citizens to access official records, enhancing transparency, accountability, and public participation in democratic decision-making.
The High Court ruled that genuine clerical mistakes in GST returns cannot justify tax proceedings when the correction only reflects the true nature of transactions and causes no loss to the revenue.
The High Court granted interim relief to a contractor after observing that the determination of the Delhi Jal Board’s status under the CGST Act will decide whether GST applies at 12% or 18%.
The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
