The ITAT condoned a 66-day delay after accepting that the trust was unfamiliar with the income-tax e-filing system. The matter was restored for fresh consideration with costs imposed.
The court declined to keep the writ pending once the appellate forum became functional, directing the taxpayer to pursue the statutory appeal. It reaffirmed that disputes must move to GSTAT when an effective remedy is available.
The Court held that an assessment passed solely on GST portal notices without granting personal hearing was unsustainable and remanded the matter on payment of 25% of disputed tax.
The Court held that an assessee cannot be denied TDS credit or saddled with tax demand when tax has been deducted from salary but not deposited by the employer.
The ITAT held that reopening an assessment after four years without any new tangible material is invalid. A reassessment based merely on re-examining earlier facts was struck down as a change of opinion.
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision to admit an additional TP ground allowing reconsideration of AEs as the tested party. It held that no substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh factual examination.
The High Court refused bail, holding that prima facie material showed demand and partial acceptance of illegal gratification. Such allegations were found to seriously undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Court permitted interim release of seized imported goods upon payment of quantified enhanced duty and furnishing a bank guarantee. It clarified that adjudication proceedings may continue independently.
The High Court held that the petitioner had duly submitted the original title deed as security and directed the Department to trace and return it within a fixed time.
The High Court held that limitation for filing a GST appeal must be computed after disposal of a rectification application. Rejection of the appeal without examining this aspect was found invalid.
