The Tribunal held that the appellate authority failed to examine inventory-related documents before sustaining disallowance under section 37(1). The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication with directions to consider all evidence.
The Court held that the show cause notice provided less than seven days to respond, contrary to the prescribed procedure. The assessment and related notices were set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
The Kerala High Court ordered abeyance of recovery proceedings under a penalty order while the stay petition is considered, ensuring no enforcement until a decision is made.
The High Court refused to entertain the challenge to a sale notice, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an effective alternative remedy exists.
The Delhi High Court invalidated the retrospective cancellation of GST registration where the show cause notice did not contemplate retrospective action, ensuring a fresh hearing after re-inspection.
The Court noted that the GST-related allegation concerned only the firm’s proprietor, while the petitioners were merely agents. Anticipatory bail was granted with directions to surrender and comply with statutory conditions.
The Court dismissed the petition after holding that statutory remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act must be exhausted first. It allowed the petitioners to approach the DRT for their grievances.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities misread the amended notification on Chapter 31 goods and failed to show that the imports were clearly excluded. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of the exemption’s scope.
The Court ruled that assessment notices for earlier years were void because the tax authorities did not lodge claims before the resolution plan was approved. Once the plan attained finality, all excluded claims stood extinguished under binding IBC principles. The judgment also holds that the revenue cannot deny carry-forward of losses after failing to participate in the insolvency process.
