The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
The High Court upheld the GST assessment order, ruling that delay in filing the writ and presence of an auto-generated reference number defeated claims of invalid DIN and unsigned notices.
The Court ruled that liability under Section 93 does not permit tax determination against a deceased proprietor. The impugned orders were quashed with liberty for fresh proceedings.
The High Court held that arrest was not necessary in a dispute over a GST overdraft arrangement. Bail was granted with conditions, noting custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
Relying on apex court precedents, the High Court ruled that ordinarily bail should be granted in CGST cases involving documentary evidence and limited punishment.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
Once the Central Government notified the Faceless Scheme for reassessment (effective March 29, 2022), the JAO was effectively divested of the power to issue notices under Section 148. The issuance of a notice by a JAO instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was a jurisdictional error that could not be cured.
Holding that responsibility for delay required factual adjudication, the High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the parties to civil or arbitral remedies.
The Court ruled that GST proceedings initiated under Section 74 for FY 2024–25 were without jurisdiction and directed treatment of the order as a Section 74A notice.
