The Court observed that the petitioner’s non-appearance before the appellate authority was linked to serious ailments. It directed filing of an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court order concerning reassessment notices. It held that no ground existed under Article 136 to intervene, leaving the assessee to pursue remedies before the Assessing Officer.
The court declined to interfere with notices issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 because the petition was filed after more than one and a half years. It held that the assessee should appear before the Assessing Officer and present its submissions.
The Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST demand, noting that the statutory appellate remedy was still available. The Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal subject to a 10% pre-deposit.
The Supreme Court granted four weeks to explore settlement in a dispute arising from High Court directions requiring timely payment of panel counsel bills by the Income Tax Department.
The court declined to modify earlier directions requiring prompt payment of counsel bills, holding that procedural checks cannot justify delays and interest must be paid for late payments.
The Court held that seizure of ₹1 crore in cash during GST searches was unlawful because authorities failed to record “reason to believe” as required under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision refusing specific performance after finding that the sale agreement appeared to be a sham document executed as security for a loan.
The Madras High Court held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid where the assessee had already disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal declined to treat the retail outlet price as the assessable value under valuation rules, noting that the Department’s case relied on grounds not properly established in the notice.
