The Karnataka High Court held that once confiscation orders are passed under Section 130 of the CGST/KGST Act, the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. The Court dismissed appeals seeking modification of interim release conditions for detained goods and vehicles.
The Delhi High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s reply filed on the same date as the order. The Court held that this violated principles of natural justice.
The ITAT held that credits received in the assessee’s bank account were repayments of earlier advances and not unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding that the transactions were supported by bank records and financial documents.
The Court disposed of the petition after finding that assessment proceedings against legal representatives require mandatory compliance with Section 75. It reiterated that absence of personal hearing vitiates orders passed against heirs of a deceased assessee.
The High Court ruled that GST revocation applications may be filed manually if online filing difficulties arise. The authority was directed to consider the revocation request after receipt of tax payments.
The Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning specific reasons in the statutory form is legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that non-speaking orders violate principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.
Tribunal ruled that income tax demands not included in the approved resolution plan were irrevocably extinguished. The decision followed the terms of the NCLT-approved insolvency resolution plan restored by the Supreme Court.
The NCLAT ruled that withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC cannot be invoked once liquidation proceedings have commenced. The Tribunal held that post-liquidation settlement can only proceed through the Section 230 route under the Companies Act.
TAT Chandigarh held that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the property was actually purchased from a different company than the one referred to in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal found absence of any live nexus between the assessee and the alleged incriminating material.
The Madras High Court ruled that an unregistered Joint Venture Agreement without actual transfer of possession or consideration could not amount to a transfer under Section 2(47). The Court held that no capital gains tax liability arose for the relevant assessment year.
