The Court ruled that a person who is neither a director, shareholder, nor employee of a company cannot be made liable for its tax dues through attachment of a personal bank account.
The SC dismissed a challenge to sanction notices for income tax prosecution, holding that objections including validity of sanction can be raised before the trial court. The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition therefore stands.
The Delhi High Court held that issuing a 15% withholding certificate without properly considering the Supreme Court’s ruling was legally unsustainable. The Court reduced the tax deduction rate to 2% for the relevant year.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting the petitioner’s explanation of financial and health difficulties. Restoration was granted subject to filing pending returns and payment of dues within fixed timelines.
The High Court flagged serious flaws in a GST adjudication order that cited non-existent and unrelated judgments. It indicated the need for safeguards to prevent blind reliance on incorrect legal precedents.
The Tribunal ruled that the bank followed Rule 8 of the SIE Rules by publishing the sale notice in two newspapers and serving it on the borrower. The auction conducted under SARFAESI was upheld.
The High Court set aside income tax assessments after holding that a specific written request for personal hearing cannot be rejected on technical grounds such as failure to activate a portal link. The ruling underscores that natural justice must be upheld in faceless proceedings.
The DRT Chennai allowed recovery of ₹25.40 lakh after finding that the borrower defaulted on repayment of an overdraft facility and failed to contest the case. The Tribunal relied on loan documents and certified statements of account.
The Calcutta High Court held that an appellate authority must independently evaluate the grounds of appeal and supporting explanations. Repeating the adjudicating officer’s findings without analysis renders the order invalid.
The Kerala High Court set aside a Single Judge’s decision after finding that earlier Division Bench directions to decide the writ petition on merits were not followed. The case involving attachment of a DRAT pre-deposit was remanded again for fresh consideration with liberty for all parties to raise their contentions.
