The Delhi High Court held that immunity under Section 270AA could not be denied when the penalty notice did not specify whether the proceedings were for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The impugned order was set aside.
The High Court upheld the Tribunals finding that an uncorroborated loose Excel sheet could not sustain an addition of alleged on-money. It ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings disclosed no perversity or substantial question of law.
The High Court ruled that the relevant date for filing refund claims is the date of receipt of payment in convertible foreign exchange under the substituted notification. The refund claims were held to be beyond the limitation period.
The Delhi High Court held that the pre-deposit requirement introduced by the third proviso to Section 74(1) of the DVAT Act could not apply to returns filed before the amendment. The objections were directed to be heard without insisting on any pre-deposit.
The Karnataka High Court held that the requirement to deposit 20% of the disputed tax demand is not mandatory in every case. It quashed the stay rejection orders and directed disposal of the appeals without insisting on the pre-deposit.
The High Court set aside the assessment order, demand notice, and bank attachment after finding that the proceedings were completed without the petitioner’s participation. The matter was restored to the stage of the Section 148A(b) notice for a fresh response.
The Karnataka High Court held that interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act is mandatory and cannot be waived without statutory authority. It set aside the Single Judge’s directions permitting waiver of interest, penalty, and limitation.
The Calcutta High Court permitted the petitioner to be represented before the ED by an authorised representative after considering his age and medical condition. The Court directed that personal appearance could be required later with at least 15 days’ notice.
The Gauhati High Court held that a service tax demand based only on Form 26AS, without examining the nature of services or taxability, is unsustainable. The Court quashed the tax demand, interest, and penalties.
The Telangana High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition challenging the reassessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act. The Court granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition, leaving all issues open for future adjudication.
