ITAT Delhi ruled that reassessment in search cases requires prior approval under section 148B before passing the order. Since the department failed to obtain the prescribed approval, the assessment was quashed as invalid in law.
The ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of a new flat in exchange for surrender of an old flat under a redevelopment arrangement does not amount to receipt of immovable property for inadequate consideration. The addition under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that assessment orders passed under Section 62 stood deemed withdrawn after the taxpayer filed GSTR-3B returns along with applicable late fees. Bank attachments based on those orders were also set aside.
The Karnataka High Court held that blocking an electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A without a pre-decisional hearing was unsustainable and directed immediate unblocking.
The Karnataka High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before provisional attachment of bank accounts. The Court ruled that statutory safeguards are available through post-decisional remedies under Rule 159(5).
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings issued beyond three years for AY 2018-19 were invalid because approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority under Section 151(ii).
The ITAT Delhi held that scrutiny notice issued by an ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction rendered the entire assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 and judicial precedents on jurisdictional defects.
Telangana High Court granted bail in a GST fake ITC case involving alleged wrongful availment of Rs.21.89 crore credit. The Court noted completion of investigation and continued judicial custody while allowing regular bail.
The Jharkhand High Court held that a taxpayer cannot bypass the statutory appellate mechanism merely by alleging non-service of notices. The Court dismissed the writ petition while granting liberty to file an appeal under the GST law.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Glaxo Smith Kline case, the High Court reiterated that GST appeal limitation cannot be extended while granting conditional relief.
