While recognising that earlier judgments had invalidated JAO-issued notices, the Court avoided passing orders that would make the pending appeal redundant. Instead, it directed the appellate authority to decide the matter expeditiously.
The Court is examining whether show cause notices issued years after exports are barred by delay and laches. The key issue is whether such belated proceedings are legally sustainable.
Court held that reopening of assessment based solely on vague information from Insight Portal, without a live nexus to the assessee’s records, was invalid. Reassessment notice was quashed for absence of concrete material showing income escapement.
The case examined whether a reassessment notice issued after the Ashish Agarwal procedure complied with limitation rules. The court held the notice time-barred as it exceeded the surviving period under TOLA and quashed all proceedings.
The Kerala High Court granted bail in a vigilance bribery case, noting prolonged custody and that the investigation was practically over. The Court reaffirmed that bail should not be denied merely due to the seriousness of allegations.
The Court examined whether senior company officials accused of large-scale service tax evasion deserved bail. Holding the alleged ₹55 crore evasion to be a serious economic offence, the Court refused bail, citing gravity and public revenue impact.
The issue was whether the appellate authority relied on fresh evidence without following Rule 46A. The High Court upheld deletion of the addition, holding that all documents were already on record before the Assessing Officer.
The Court examined whether ITC could remain blocked under Rule 86A beyond one year on the same allegations. It held that continuation or re-blocking without fresh grounds is impermissible, and the blocked credit must be released.
The High Court examined a GST demand raised beyond the amount mentioned in the show-cause notice. Holding it violative of Section 75(7), the Court quashed the demand and ordered fresh adjudication.
The High Court upheld deletion of addition where the Assessing Officer relied on undisclosed information. The ruling reinforces that additions cannot be sustained without confronting the assessee with material evidence.
