The High Court set aside a GST assessment issued after the taxpayer’s death, holding that proceedings cannot be validly conducted against a deceased person. It ruled that fresh assessment must involve the legal representative, with recovery limited to the estate.
The Court examined a GST demand raised after the death of a proprietor and held that proceedings against a dead person are invalid. The ruling clarifies that authorities must issue notice to legal heirs before any tax determination.
The High Court held that a service provider engaged in export of services was not an intermediary and quashed rejection of accumulated ITC refund, directing refund with interest.
The Court is examining whether show cause notices issued years after exports are barred by delay and laches. The key issue is whether such belated proceedings are legally sustainable.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
The case examined whether a reassessment notice issued after the Ashish Agarwal procedure complied with limitation rules. The court held the notice time-barred as it exceeded the surviving period under TOLA and quashed all proceedings.
The Kerala High Court granted bail in a vigilance bribery case, noting prolonged custody and that the investigation was practically over. The Court reaffirmed that bail should not be denied merely due to the seriousness of allegations.
The Court examined whether senior company officials accused of large-scale service tax evasion deserved bail. Holding the alleged ₹55 crore evasion to be a serious economic offence, the Court refused bail, citing gravity and public revenue impact.
The issue was whether the appellate authority relied on fresh evidence without following Rule 46A. The High Court upheld deletion of the addition, holding that all documents were already on record before the Assessing Officer.
The Court examined whether ITC could remain blocked under Rule 86A beyond one year on the same allegations. It held that continuation or re-blocking without fresh grounds is impermissible, and the blocked credit must be released.
