The High Court held that the applicant’s continued custody after detention without production before the competent court within 24 hours violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It granted bail while leaving the legality of the Look Out Circular open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a GST order passed without considering the taxpayer’s reply or assigning reasons is a non-speaking order violating natural justice. The Court quashed the order and directed fresh adjudication after a proper hearing.
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reinitiated penalty proceedings after the Assessing Officer failed to pass a fresh order within the 12-week period fixed by the Court. It held that non-compliance with the earlier judicial directions warranted setting aside the show-cause notices.
The Gujarat High Court held that once the Resolution Plan was approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all tax liabilities not forming part of the plan stood extinguished. It therefore quashed the reassessment notice and the order under Section 148A(d).
The Gujarat High Court quashed the reassessment notice after finding that the seized inquiry register did not establish any direct or indirect connection with the taxpayer. It held that reopening based on vague material and presumptions was unsustainable.
The High Court found that withdrawal of garnishee notices and compliance with the CBDT Office Memoranda entitled the assessee to stay of recovery. It held the subsequent refund adjustments to be legally unsustainable.
The Gujarat High Court held that after considering the ledger entries correctly, the alleged escaped income was only ₹45 lakh, below the threshold under Section 149(1)(b). As the reopening was beyond the prescribed limitation, the order under Section 148A(d) was quashed.
Gujarat High Court held that rejection of a Vivad se Vishwas declaration was invalid because final assessment arose from survey proceedings under Section 133A, not a search under Section 132. Court ruled that Section 96(a)(i) cannot be applied beyond its express wording.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision allowing Section 11 exemption after applying CBDT Circular No. 16 of 2022 permitting condonation of delayed Form 10B. It held that the Revenue failed to show why the circular was inapplicable.
The Bombay High Court held that the 2019 amendment to Section 54(1) of the GST Act applies prospectively and does not govern refund claims relating to periods before 1 February 2019. The refund applications were directed to be processed.
