The Court ruled that the reassessment notice was invalid as it exceeded the statutory 10-year limit under Section 153A. It clarified that the search year must be included in computing the extended limitation period.
The case examined whether separate penalties under CGST and SGST were permissible. The Court ruled such imposition unjustified and restricted the penalty to ₹25,000.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid if approval is obtained from an incorrect authority. It clarified that sanction must strictly comply with Section 151 based on elapsed time limits. The ruling reinforces jurisdictional safeguards in reassessment cases.
The Court held that reassessment based solely on an audit objection is invalid as it constitutes a change of opinion. It emphasized that previously examined issues cannot be reopened without new tangible material. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The Court held that failure to consider a filed reply invalidates the assessment. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with hearing opportunity.
The Court examined whether GST cancellation for non-filing of returns could be reversed. It held that authorities must consider restoration if the taxpayer files pending returns and pays dues. The key takeaway is that compliance can enable reconsideration of cancellation.
The Court examined whether a complaint arising from a family dispute can be entertained in misconduct proceedings. It held that such complaints are maintainable if they disclose professional misconduct.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT order deleting LTCG additions. It ruled that factual findings based on evidence cannot be disturbed without legal error.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The Bombay High Court held that assessment proceedings conducted in the name of a company that ceased to exist after amalgamation are void. All related notices and orders were set aside. The ruling confirms that jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity.
