Hc held that alternative remedy will not operate as an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition as jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, we are of the view that appellant has made out a case for entertaining this appeal” and had also stayed the further re-assessment proceedings.
Bombay High Court held that in absence of any fresh tangible material and simply attempting to re-visit and reconsider the decision which was rendered in earlier regular assessment proceedings is nothing but a change of opinion and hence reopening unsustainable.
Delhi High Court held that section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empower Government to make amendments with retrospective effect.
Jharkhand High Court held that as there is no act to deliberately file incorrect returns, hence penalty under section 40(2) of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Madras High Court held that granting of personal hearing before submission of defence reply cannot be said to be in compliance of section 75(4) of TNGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, impugned order set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Orbit Projects Private Limited Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) Sub- Whether an Assessing officer ignoring the judgement of Calcutta high court in the case of assessee itself issue a fresh notice u/s 148 disregarding the fact that the company in whose name the notice is issued is no longer in existence and for this very […]
HC quashed demand order passed by Revenue Department, on the grounds that reply filed by assessee to SCN was not considered even though the same was received by Revenue Department.
Madras High Court held that no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act, 2017 and importantly adverse decision is taken by the respondent. Hence, impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Jharkhand High Court held that when search is initiated, penalty is leviable under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) post initiation of search is unsustainable.
HC held that even assuming an alternative remedy u/S 246 of the Act of filing an appeal is available, it will not operate as an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition as jurisdictional issues goes to the root of matter and it is one of the exceptional factors carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
