The Karnataka High Court held that a Magistrate conducting recovery proceedings under the KVAT Act has no authority to determine the validity of statutory ‘H’ Forms. The Court directed the taxpayer to approach the Assessing Authority instead.
ITAT Ahmedabad upheld reassessment proceedings after finding that seized diaries recorded unaccounted cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits. The Tribunal held that statutory conditions for reopening were satisfied.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a reassessment after finding that the Section 148 notice was based on an incorrect allegation of property sale. The Court held that reopening requires bona fide reasons supported by relevant material.
The applicant sought clarification on the applicability of Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) and the related GST rate. The Maharashtra AAR allowed withdrawal of the application without examining the merits.
The Maharashtra AAR allowed withdrawal of an advance ruling application seeking clarity on whether GST should be charged at 12% or 18%. Since the application was voluntarily withdrawn, no decision was given on the applicable GST rate.
The ITAT held that an assessee can contest a Section 143(1) adjustment in an appeal against the assessment order if the adjustment is retained therein. The case emphasizes that multiple statutory remedies may coexist.
The Tribunal held that when the importer itself was exonerated on the ground that the classification dispute was interpretational, Customs Brokers acting on the importer’s instructions could not be penalized for abetment. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were therefore deleted.
The Tribunal held that denial of effective cross-examination in proceedings founded on statements and investigation reports caused serious prejudice to the Customs Broker. Since the revocation proceedings lacked procedural fairness, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the first payment due under the approved resolution plan remained entirely unpaid despite repeated opportunities. The inability or unwillingness to honour financial commitments under the plan led to liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.
The case examined whether insolvency proceedings against a guarantor could continue after resolution plans for principal borrowers were approved. The Tribunal ruled that the guarantee remained enforceable as no actual discharge of liability had occurred.
