V. K. Sharma Vs JVG Finance Limited (Delhi High Court) Conclusion: Appellant had failed to establish locus standi to challenge orders relating to asset realisation in liquidation and the material on record clearly demonstrated that liabilities of the company far exceeded available funds, making sale of assets necessary. Held: The company in liquidation (JVG Group) […]
The Court ruled that filing GSTR-3B returns and paying tax nullifies best judgment assessment orders under Section 62. Interest liability for delayed payment, however, was left intact.
Orrisa High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount refunded with respect to IGST paid on ocean freight. Accordingly, competent authority is directed to pay simple interest @6% per annum on amount of refund.
Madras High Court held that dormant partner cannot be made vicariously liable for benami transaction especially since even the necessary averment to invoke vicarious liability is absent in the complaint. Accordingly, order set aside to that extent.
Karnataka High Court held that vocational training qualifies as education under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. Exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act allowed since surplus generated is used only for educational purposes. Accordingly, writ allowed.
The Court held that a final GST adjudication order passed within three months of the show cause notice violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Orders issued without granting the statutory minimum response period were declared unsustainable.
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
The Court held that interest under reverse charge cannot be recovered without prior adjudication. Coercive recovery was set aside as the liability was not an admitted tax.
The issue was a municipal demand raised without prior notice. The Court accepted the authority’s statement to treat it as a show cause notice and ensure a hearing before any final decision.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed when financial statements were not called for despite the taxpayer’s willingness to furnish them. The court set aside the notice, holding that lack of proper opportunity vitiated the reopening.
