The Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal had been constituted and its members appointed. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, must be entertained without limitation objections.
The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal after noting its constitution and operational readiness. Appeals filed by June 30, 2026, are to be entertained without limitation objections.
The NCLT Mumbai held that developments occurring during the pendency of proceedings could be incorporated when they were connected with existing allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The Tribunal found that such amendments would aid effective adjudication.
The Kerala High Court held that a composite show cause notice issued for multiple assessment years was legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the notice while permitting fresh separate notices subject to exclusion of time for limitation purposes.
The Delhi ITAT held that additions made on transactions unrelated to the reasons recorded for reopening were beyond the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction. The reassessment addition was therefore deleted.
The ITAT Chandigarh held that once registration under Section 12AB had been directed to be granted, the primary basis for rejecting approval under Section 80G ceased to exist. The matter was remanded to examine the remaining statutory conditions under Section 80G.
The Delhi High Court held that import restrictions could not apply to consignments that had arrived before the relevant notification was published in the Official Gazette. The ruling reiterates that delegated legislation becomes enforceable only upon lawful publication.
The Delhi ITAT found that the Assessing Officer lacked legal authority to reopen assessment years lying outside the ten-year block period computed under Section 153C. Revenue’s appeals challenging the CIT(A)’s decision were dismissed.
The Kerala High Court held that issuing one show cause notice for multiple financial years is not legally sustainable. While quashing the notice, the Court preserved the department’s right to issue fresh year-wise notices.
CESTAT Chennai held that refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied merely due to missing original documents or procedural deficiencies when the importer establishes payment of SAD, VAT/CST, and non-passing of credit. The Tribunal directed grant of refund with interest.
