The issue was whether CBDT monetary limits barred the revenue appeal. The Court held that organised tax evasion and accommodation entry cases are carved out exceptions, defeating the low tax effect argument.
The High Court held that further recovery should be halted where a rectification application against a GST order is pending and substantial tax has already been recovered. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide rectification within a fixed timeframe.
The High Court held that the appellate authority failed to consider material documents placed on record while rejecting a GST appeal. The matter was remanded for fresh decision after proper evaluation of evidence.
The High Court held that delay caused by illness of a partner should have been condoned where the fact was not disputed. The appellate authority’s dismissal of the GST appeal on limitation alone was set aside.
The Delhi High Court held that a withholding tax certificate cannot stand once the ITAT sets aside the finding of a dependent agent PE. Since the Revenue relied solely on quashed assessment orders, the 8.75% TDS was invalid.
The Delhi High Court held that expiry of 120 days under Section 132B does not trigger automatic release of seized assets. The only consequence of delay is interest liability, reaffirming that AO’s satisfaction is essential.
Delhi High Court held that where controversy is anchored in company’s affairs and issue is one which NCLT/NCLAT is empowered to determine the matter in question, section 430 of Companies Act bars parallel civil suits and compels recourse to NCLAT/NCLAT.
Calcutta High Court held that GST Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs [CBIC] are binding on all the departmental officers but at the same time circular should not be treated as shield to ward off legal scrutiny and shelve legal action in cases involving undisclosed transaction, and/or dubious invoices and bills.
Madras High Court held that reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after expiry of four years is sustainable in law since assessee has failed to set out truly and fully all the material facts.
The High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law on presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C by wrongly shifting the burden to the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
