The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that retrospective GST registration cancellation cannot be sustained without specifically informing the taxpayer through a proper notice. The Court set aside the cancellation order for violation of natural justice principles.
The Gujarat High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the Income Tax Department relied on an undated and uninvestigated complaint. The Court held that reopening based on conjectures and unsupported material could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that leasehold rights transferred with land and building fall within the ambit of Section 50C. The matter relating to reassessment validity was sent back for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that Form 3CL issued by DSIR could not be treated as additional evidence during rectification proceedings since it had already been sent to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the issue for fresh quantification of deduction under Section 35(2AB).
The Orissa High Court set aside GST demand and rectification orders after finding that the taxpayer’s reply and request for personal hearing were ignored. The Court held that failure to consider the reply violated principles of natural justice.
High Court held that GST authorities must consider CBIC circular clarifying implementation of Section 16(5) before sustaining denial of input tax credit for delayed return filing.
NCLAT held that a joint venture arrangement did not prevent insolvency proceedings where separate agreements clearly imposed supply obligations and payment responsibilities between parties. Tribunal ruled that unpaid supply dues constituted operational debt under IBC.
The Delhi High Court held that a reassessment notice without physical signature remains valid when the name and designation of the Assessing Officer are clearly mentioned. The Court ruled that Section 282A(2) recognizes such authentication in the digital era.
Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an old email address, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
