The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court directed the PCCIT to appoint a senior officer to re-examine a refund claim where both parties lacked decades-old records. A reasoned decision must be taken to ensure any legitimate refund is not denied.
The Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory before confiscation of goods. Even alleged waiver by the importer cannot override statutory and natural justice requirements.
Setting aside the assessment, the Court held that non-selection of a portal option cannot deprive an assessee of oral hearing. Denial of such opportunity amounted to violation of natural justice.
The Bombay High Court set aside a consolidated GST show cause notice covering five financial years, holding that Section 74 mandates year-wise assessment and limitation. The ruling clarifies that tax demands must strictly follow the statutory financial year structure.
The Madras High Court quashed GST assessment orders passed under Section 74 after finding that no personal hearing was granted. The Court held that denying a hearing violates principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court quashed assessment under Section 74 as no personal hearing was granted and the same assessment year was reassessed for higher demand.
The Court refused to interfere with the reassessment order, noting that sufficient opportunity was provided pursuant to a remand. Financial crisis was held not to be a valid ground to set aside the assessment.
The Calcutta High Court held that passing an adverse order without granting mandatory hearing under Section 75(4) violates natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
