The ITAT concluded that non-compliance with faceless procedure under Section 151A renders Section 148 notices invalid, nullifying both substantive and protective additions.
Courts held that allegations of large-scale fraudulent ITC require factual adjudication and are unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal. The Supreme Court refused intervention but extended time to file the appeal.
The Court held that penalty proceedings issued six to nine years late under the repealed VAT law were unreasonable and without jurisdiction. It ruled that powers must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe and quashed all notices and orders.
The Tribunal held that exemption under section 11 cannot be denied solely for delayed uploading of Form 10B, treating the lapse as procedural and directing allowance of exemption.
The Delhi High Court rejected an application seeking condonation of a nine-month delay in filing a revised ITR, holding that no sufficient cause or genuine hardship was established. The original ITR had been filed on time, and the delay was deemed excessive.
The Delhi High Court allowed a company to file a GST appeal despite delay, citing the serious illness of a key director. The Court emphasized procedural fairness while the validity of related notifications remains pending before the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal found that statutory procedures for issuing demand, possession, and sale notices were properly followed by the bank. It observed that the borrowers provided no valuation report or evidence supporting their claim of undervaluation. The auction was therefore sustained as legally valid.
The court held that Ombudsman’s finding of customer negligence was unsustainable and directed bank to refund disputed amount. The ruling clarifies that refund may be ordered when adjudication fails to consider material records.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid where the faceless system applies. It quashed the reassessment proceedings and confirmed that such notices must be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer.
The Court remanded an ex-parte GST demand order after the petitioner could not respond due to a parent’s serious illness. This case underlines that unavoidable circumstances can merit reconsideration of tax proceedings.
