The case involved a penalty imposed despite the main tax demand being set aside in appeal. The Court held that the petitioner should seek rectification before the proper officer.
The Court addressed the issue where the GST portal prevented filing of a revocation application due to time limits. It allowed manual submission and directed authorities to consider it.
The Court refused to entertain the writ as a statutory appeal remedy existed under the Finance Act. It allowed the petitioner to approach CESTAT with delay condonation.
Delhi High Court held that challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated under Income Tax Act failed as Court cannot act as an AO and call such documents which otherwise can be done by AO. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
he Court declined to examine merits as the petitioner did not file a reply to the impugned communication. It directed submission of response and continuation of proceedings.
The respondents could not justify why the taxpayer would deposit money without a formal demand. The Court treated the payment as non-voluntary.
The Court held that repeated dishonour of cheque and non-payment after notice established a prima facie case. It refused to quash proceedings at the summoning stage.
The court examined whether consolidated GST show-cause notices across financial years are valid. It found no clear statutory bar but referred the issue to a larger bench due to conflicting precedents.
Karnataka High Court declines writ on pension, arrears and leave claims of retired tax official, holds service matters must first go to CAT; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum.
Karnataka High Court sets aside rejection of business loss for violation of natural justice due to denial of personal hearing; remands for fresh adjudication, other findings remain intact.
