The court held that Section 74 cannot be invoked without alleging fraud or suppression. The key takeaway is that absence of jurisdictional facts invalidates GST proceedings.
The court recorded the Revenue’s statement withdrawing the suspension of registration and ordered immediate restoration. It held that further action must follow due process and proper hearing.
The issue was whether lack of detailed charges invalidates a show cause notice. The Court found that the taxpayer’s detailed replies indicated understanding of allegations. The key takeaway is that effective response can negate claims of vagueness.
The issue was whether parents-in-law can claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law. The Court held that the law does not include parents-in-law within eligible categories. The key takeaway is that maintenance rights are strictly limited to statutory provisions.
The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition as the Revenue had an effective statutory remedy by way of appeal. It held that issues of legal interpretation must be pursued through appellate mechanisms.
The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 94(7) without verifying facts. The matter was remanded for fresh examination with proper opportunity to the assessee.
The court held that the impugned GST notifications were invalid as they curtailed limitation and were based on erroneous legal assumptions. The ruling clarifies that such arbitrary notifications cannot override statutory provisions.
The petitioner’s claim that delay was caused by a tax consultant was rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding was not perverse and required no interference.
CIT Vs Patel Engg. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) The appeals before the Bombay High Court arose from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee for Assessment Years 2000–01 and 2001–02. The central issue was whether the assessee qualified as a […]
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration without proof of proper service of notice. The Court held the order invalid and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
