The High Court held that since the petitioner’s appeal was pending when Rule 96(10) was omitted through Notification No. 20/2024, the provision could not be applied. The demand and penalty were quashed.
The High Court found that the adjudicating authority exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to provide a proper hearing before passing the confiscation and penalty order.
The ITAT Delhi annulled a reassessment after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceeding invalid in law.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST demand after finding that the assessing officer failed to consider binding CBIC circulars clarifying valuation of corporate guarantees. The case was remanded for reconsideration. The ruling reinforces the requirement for authorities to adhere to departmental circulars.
The Allahabad High Court refused bail to an accused in a cyber fraud case involving fake GST registrations, citing strong evidence and the rising threat of digital crimes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee’s income tax return for AY 2013-14 was filed within the permissible time under Section 139. Therefore, the penalty of ₹5,000 imposed under Section 271F was unjustified and was deleted.
The Gujarat High Court allowed restoration of GST registration after confirming full tax, interest, and fee payments in the Electronic Cash Ledger, permitting the petitioner to file pending returns.
The Madras High Court condoned delay in ITR filing, holding that refund claims must be allowed if genuine hardship is proven, despite procedural delays.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the show-cause notice was uploaded under an unconventional portal section, preventing the petitioner from responding.
The Bombay High Court ruled that authorities cannot raise tax demands after a resolution plan’s approval under IBC, setting aside the order as without jurisdiction.
