The Bombay High Court held that failure to address detailed objections and provide reasons renders provisional attachment orders legally unsustainable. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.
The Madras High Court granted liberty to file an appeal within 30 days and directed the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits without considering limitation.
The Court ruled that the petitioner must approach the appellate authority under the GST law, while granting conditional liberty to file the appeal despite limitation.
The High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration because the order was cryptic and lacked reasons or reference to supporting material. The Court held that cancellation orders must reflect application of mind and clearly state the grounds for such action.
The High Court set aside the provisional attachment of property under the Income Tax Act after finding no tangible material showing risk to government revenue.
The High Court held that initiating recovery through a garnishee notice before examining the taxpayer’s explanation and documents was not justified. The bank account freeze was lifted and authorities were directed to reconsider the matter after reviewing the submitted materials.
The Court held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applies to maintenance claims against children or relatives, not disputes over property obstruction by neighbours.
The court refused bail after noting allegations that employee provident funds were invested in a private financial institution in violation of statutory provisions and government guidelines.
Official Liquidator Vs Kirloskar Institute (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered an appeal filed by the Official Liquidator of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (the company in liquidation) challenging the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Company Court in Company Application No.826/2011 in Company Petition No.166/2001. The Company Court had dismissed the application filed by […]
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A after the Managing Director admitted availing ITC on blocked invoices during inspection. The Court ruled that such admission weakened the taxpayer’s challenge to the department’s action.
