The Court held that interest under reverse charge cannot be recovered without prior adjudication. Coercive recovery was set aside as the liability was not an admitted tax.
The issue was a municipal demand raised without prior notice. The Court accepted the authority’s statement to treat it as a show cause notice and ensure a hearing before any final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
The Court held that reassessment based on a retrospective amendment to Section 80HHC is invalid. The key takeaway is that such amendments cannot reopen concluded assessments.
The issue was denial of a discharge certificate despite timely payment under the Sabka Viswas Scheme. The Court ruled that authorities must issue the certificate once payment is admitted, even if the portal is defunct.
The court upheld dismissal of a GST appeal filed well beyond the permissible condonation period. It ruled that neither appellate authorities nor writ courts can extend limitation beyond what the statute allows.
The Court held that assessment orders under Section 62 cannot survive once GSTR-3B returns are filed with tax and dues. The key takeaway is that belated compliance can nullify best judgment assessments.
The issue was denial of income-tax exemption to a statutory welfare board. The Court held that a subsequent government notification granting section 10(46) exemption resolved the dispute and nullified the pending tax demand and penalty.
The issue was whether a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 issued in August 2024 was time-barred. The Court held it exceeded the ten-year limit and quashed the proceedings.
The issue was rejection of a GST appeal filed beyond the initial limitation period. The Court held that delay within the condonable period must be considered and granted the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
