A taxpayer could submit a revised return u/s 139(5) only when it discovered a bona fide omission or incorrect statement in the original return submitted u/s 139(1).
The court held that an adjudication order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply is unsustainable. It remitted the matter for fresh consideration with an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that a single show cause notice covering multiple assessment years is not legally sustainable. Authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each year.
The ruling highlights that ignoring a taxpayer’s additional reply and request for hearing renders the order unsustainable. The case was remanded for reconsideration after proper opportunity of hearing.
The court held that the revised 18% GST rate is applicable, but deferred recovery of the 6% differential tax as reimbursement from government authorities was pending.
The case examined whether purchase tax liability could be enforced when system defects prevented payment. The court held that software issues causing revenue-neutral outcomes made the demand unsustainable.
The Court removed the requirement to verify “authorized operations” for earlier transactions, holding that the condition was introduced only from October 2023. The ruling clarifies temporal applicability of amended provisions.
The court examined whether unutilized cess credits could be refunded after GST transition. It held that without explicit statutory backing, refund claims are not maintainable, leading to dismissal of the petition.
The court examined whether buy-back of shares below fair market value attracts Section 56(2)(x). It held that buy-back leads to extinguishment of shares, not acquisition of property, making the provision inapplicable.
The Court held that failure to upload the DRC-07 summary affects appellate rights. Recovery proceedings were stayed until compliance is completed.
