The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in restoring benami appeals solely on the basis of liberty granted in a later Supreme Court review order. It ruled that statutory limits governing review proceedings must still be satisfied.
The Supreme Court held that final judgments cannot be reviewed merely because the legal position later changes. It ruled that the overruling of an earlier precedent does not satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLVII CPC.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued physically by jurisdictional officers instead of faceless authorities violate Section 151A. The ruling sets aside non-compliant notices while tying the final outcome to pending Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court set aside notices issued under Sections 148A and consequential reassessment orders after holding that the proceedings suffered from jurisdictional infirmities. The relief, however, remains subject to the Supreme Court’s decision in the pending SLP.
GSTAT held that retaining the same ticket prices after GST reductions amounted to profiteering under Section 171 of the CGST Act. The Tribunal directed deposit of ₹8.99 lakh with interest after finding that consumers were denied the benefit of lower tax rates.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings could not be initiated on the issue of broken period interest when the legal position had already been settled by binding precedents. The Court quashed the notices issued under Sections 148A and 148.
The Orissa High Court held that a GST appeal filed within the additional one-month condonable period under Section 107(4) could not be rejected as time-barred. The ruling emphasises proper computation of limitation by excluding the date of communication of the order.
The Court held that where a purchasing dealer has complied with statutory requirements and acted in good faith, ITC cannot be denied solely because the supplier failed to discharge tax obligations. The impugned adjudication and appellate orders were therefore quashed.
ITAT Delhi remitted matters relating to sections 12AB and 80G after finding that the impugned orders did not clearly establish whether the assessee had filed replies or complied with notices. The cases were sent back for fresh adjudication in the interest of substantive justice.
ITAT Delhi held that professional fees claimed for raising working capital limits could not be fully allowed as the taxpayer failed to establish their business relevance. However, considering the circumstances, only 50% of the expenditure was disallowed.
