The High Court held that reassessment cannot be based on grounds not mentioned in the original Section 148A notice. Since no income had escaped assessment, the reopening was quashed.
The Court ruled that provisional attachment under Section 83(1) cannot continue beyond one year as per Section 83(2). The attachment order was held to have lapsed by operation of law.
The Court held that allegations of forged extension and duress require factual examination by the Adjudicating Authority, maintaining status quo on seized gold and cash.
The High Court granted a second opportunity after finding that assessment orders were passed without reply, as notices were sent to an old employee’s email ID.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers cannot be denied ITC merely because the supplier failed to deposit GST, applying the reading down principle to Section 16(2)(c).
The High Court denied bail, holding that serious allegations of loan diversion through shell entities were supported by bank records and witness statements. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The High Court granted a post-decisional hearing after finding that a proper Chartered Accountant’s certificate with UDIN was not filed before the appellate authority. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to submit relevant documents.
High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
The High Court ruled that mud engineering services and related chemicals supplied under a drilling contract are naturally bundled and constitute a composite supply under GST. Separate invoicing does not alter the integrated nature of the contract.
Relying on the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5), the Court quashed orders reversing ITC as time-barred. The Department was restrained from proceeding on limitation grounds.
