The High Court directed the Tax Recovery Officer to decide the taxpayer’s pending objection after payment of arrear MV tax. It also restrained authorities from taking coercive recovery measures until the objection is adjudicated.
The High Court held that the addition under Section 40(a)(i) could not survive because it was made contrary to the DRP’s binding directions. The assessment order was set aside to that extent.
The Tribunal held that a bank guarantee wrongly reported as a contingent liability in the tax audit report could not be added to income when it was not claimed as an expense. It directed deletion of the ₹9.41 lakh addition made on the basis of the reporting error.
The Court examined denial of ITC and penalty imposed for alleged delayed filing of returns. It held that the return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5) and directed reconsideration of the ITC claim.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening contained incorrect figures and unsupported assumptions. It held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that a trust’s application for regular registration could not be rejected solely because the wrong clause was selected in the prescribed form. It directed the authority to treat the application under the correct provision and decide it on merits.
Although the applicants highlighted the prolonged pendency of the case, the Court found that factual and legal issues remained to be examined at trial. The proceedings were therefore not quashed.
The Court held that a bail condition linked to tax and penalty amounts that were yet to be determined was vague and unenforceable. Security of disclosed assets was accepted in its place.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where a statutory appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act was available. Liberty was granted to file the appeal before the prescribed deadline.
The High Court held that returns filed before the cut-off date specified in Section 16(5) entitled the taxpayer to claim ITC. It quashed the order denying ITC based on the limitation under Section 16(4).
