The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of a statutory appeal before CESTAT. It held that no exceptional circumstance justified bypassing the appellate remedy.
The Court held that the Section 148 notice was invalid as it was issued by an Assessing Officer who no longer had jurisdiction.
The Gujarat High Court upheld the Tribunal’s estimation of 6% on disputed purchases, holding that concurrent findings of fact warranted no interference. It dismissed the appeals for absence of any substantial question of law.
The Gujarat High Court held that the Assessing Officer relied only on information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department without conducting independent verification. It upheld the restriction of the addition to 5% and dismissed the Revenues appeal.
The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had made inquiries and accepted the assessee’s explanation.
The Court held that Section 263 could not be invoked where the AO had raised queries, examined replies and completed the assessment.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals as infructuous after the Tribunal disposed of the main appeals, leaving the legal questions open.
Calcutta HC held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover civil dues after failed IBC proceedings where essential criminal ingredients are absent.
Calcutta HC held that attachment under Section 107 BNSS requires objective “reason to believe,” not suspicion or assumption, while permitting a fresh application.
Karnataka HC held that a Section 148A(b) notice granting less than seven days for compliance is invalid, making all consequential proceedings unsustainable.
