SA Aromatics Pvt Ltd and another Vs Union of India and 5 others (Allahabad High Court) The Allahabad High Court decided a batch of writ petitions challenging proceedings initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitions raised […]
The Court ruled that a person who is neither a director, shareholder, nor employee of a company cannot be made liable for its tax dues through attachment of a personal bank account.
The Delhi High Court held that issuing a 15% withholding certificate without properly considering the Supreme Court’s ruling was legally unsustainable. The Court reduced the tax deduction rate to 2% for the relevant year.
The High Court revoked cancellation of GST registration after accepting the petitioner’s explanation of financial and health difficulties. Restoration was granted subject to filing pending returns and payment of dues within fixed timelines.
The High Court flagged serious flaws in a GST adjudication order that cited non-existent and unrelated judgments. It indicated the need for safeguards to prevent blind reliance on incorrect legal precedents.
The High Court set aside income tax assessments after holding that a specific written request for personal hearing cannot be rejected on technical grounds such as failure to activate a portal link. The ruling underscores that natural justice must be upheld in faceless proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that an appellate authority must independently evaluate the grounds of appeal and supporting explanations. Repeating the adjudicating officer’s findings without analysis renders the order invalid.
The Kerala High Court set aside a Single Judge’s decision after finding that earlier Division Bench directions to decide the writ petition on merits were not followed. The case involving attachment of a DRAT pre-deposit was remanded again for fresh consideration with liberty for all parties to raise their contentions.
The Delhi High Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing the grant of registration under Sections 12AB and 80G without examining the genuineness of the trust’s activities. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for proper inquiry.
The Madras High Court observed that officers should explore other methods under Section 169, such as RPAD, when taxpayers do not respond to portal notices. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded.
