The Telangana High Court held that an appeal should not be dismissed as time-barred when the taxpayer was diligently pursuing a statutory rectification application. The Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the appeal for decision on merits.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessee’s detailed replies. The Court held that non-consideration of the replies violated the statutory requirement under Section 148A.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice after finding that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the assessees complete replies. The Court held that non-consideration of the replies vitiated the reassessment proceedings.
Since the material on record disclosed grave suspicion regarding acquisition and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income and attracted the presumption under section 24 of the PMLA, the Special Court was justified in refusing discharge. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition of a former Forest Range Officer was dismissed.
The Orissa High Court held that the Section 143(2) notice was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction and set it aside. The Court left it open to the competent authority to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an unsigned GST assessment order is invalid and cannot be sustained. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax.
The Karnataka High Court held that Input Tax Credit could not be denied merely because GSTR-2A did not reflect imports and SEZ procurements during FY 2018-19. It quashed the ITC demand and remanded the remaining GST issues for fresh adjudication.
The High Court granted bail in a GST ITC fraud case after noting that the accused had remained in custody for about four months and the evidence was primarily documentary. The Court found no material indicating a likelihood of evidence tampering or non-cooperation with the trial.
The Calcutta High Court held that Section 115JB was not applicable to Assessment Year 2011-12 as it became effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was dismissed in favour of the assessee.
The Delhi High Court held that an assessment order continues to exist even if an interim court order prevents it from being given effect to. It permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
