The Delhi High Court held that material recovered during a search can validly form the basis of reassessment proceedings even if the search is later alleged to be illegal. The Court ruled that proceedings initiated on the basis of such material do not automatically become void.
The Kerala High Court held that delay condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) must comply with the revised five-year limitation prescribed by CBDT circulars. The Court ruled that authorities cannot entertain applications filed beyond the revised period.
The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
Tripura High Court granted leave to challenge release of seized gold after noting that confiscation orders had already been upheld by appellate authorities and CESTAT. The Court held that the trial court’s release order prima facie contradicted those finalized confiscation proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from a conveyance relating to office premises satisfied the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST cancellation notice lacking material particulars cannot sustain cancellation proceedings. The Court restored the registration after finding both the notice and cancellation order vague and non-speaking.
The Tripura High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding prima facie non-compliance with section 169 of the CGST Act regarding service of the adjudication order.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
