Bombay High Court held that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after obtaining sanction under section 151 from the non-competent authority is invalid and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, notice is liable to be quashed and petition is allowed.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order quashing a provisional attachment, holding that the matter had become academic after confirmation under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. The Court emphasized that parties must pursue statutory appellate remedies.
The Court partly allowed the writ petition, noting that the petitioners claim was found genuine upon verification. Authorities were directed to reconsider restoration of GST registration from the original date.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging GST assessment orders due to unexplained delay. It held that lack of timely action bars relief under writ jurisdiction.
The Bombay High Court set aside a service tax demand on an advocate, holding that legal services were exempt under Notification Nos. 25/2012 and 30/2012. The Court ruled that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in proceeding contrary to binding notifications.
The High Court held that salaries paid to foreign employees are excluded from GST under Schedule III as they arise from an employer-employee relationship. The IGST demand, interest, and penalty were quashed.
The Court held that pendency of a Supreme Court challenge on fish meal GST does not waive the mandatory 10% pre-deposit for appeal. The petitioner must comply before the appeal is entertained.
The High Court held that courts must intimate the Income Tax Department when suits involve cash transactions exceeding Rs.2 lakh. However, it ruled that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to disclose his PAN number to defendants.
The High Court set aside a tax demand arising from foreign tax credit mismatch because no valid intimation under Section 143(1) was produced or served. It held that recovery cannot be enforced without mandatory service of notice of demand.
The High Court ruled that when the initial pre-deposit exceeds 20% of the revised tax demand, no additional payment can be insisted upon for filing appeal before GSTAT.
