The High Court held that once an NCLT-approved resolution plan comes into effect, claims not included in the plan stand extinguished. It quashed the income tax demand and ordered refund of the recovered amounts with interest.
The Delhi High Court held that an assessment relying on a seized document and its author’s statement cannot be sustained without providing a real opportunity for cross-examination. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that a writ petition against a show cause notice is ordinarily not maintainable when adjudication has not begun. It directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply and permitted all issues to be decided during adjudication.
The Madras High Court held that allegations regarding incorrect or incomplete disclosures in an election affidavit cannot be examined in a writ petition. It ruled that such challenges must be pursued through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act.
The Gauhati High Court directed restoration of the cancelled GST registration subject to payment of all outstanding tax dues, penalties, and fines. The Court granted relief by following its earlier decision in a similar matter.
The High Court held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without recording reasons in writing and without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, contrary to Rule 46A. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after following the prescribed procedure.
The Court ruled that the statutory saving clause permits service tax proceedings to be instituted, continued, and enforced after the repeal of the Finance Act provisions. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to contest the matter before the adjudicating authority.
The Gauhati High Court held that Customs could not invoke Sections 110 and 111 of the Customs Act without material establishing the foreign origin of the seized areca nuts. The Court ruled that mere suspicion cannot substitute the statutory requirement of “reason to believe.”
The Madras High Court held that moulds and dies could not qualify as capital goods under the TNVAT Act because they were not used within the State for manufacture. Consequently, VAT at 14.5% under the residuary entry was upheld for inter-State sales without C-Forms.
The Gauhati High Court set aside a provisional bank account attachment after finding that the authority failed to form the mandatory opinion required under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court held that a mechanical attachment order is not legally sustainable.
