The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by not examining the respondent’s contradictory positions on ownership and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that confiscation orders passed under GST laws are appealable under Section 107 and should not be challenged directly in writ jurisdiction. As an effective appellate remedy existed, the petition was not maintainable. The ruling reinforces the primacy of statutory remedies in GST disputes.
The Karnataka High Court invalidated a faceless assessment because the show-cause notice gave the assessee less than seven days to respond, violating mandatory SOP and principles of natural justice.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the scope of Section 151A are void in law. All notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) were therefore set aside.
The High Court held that an assessment completed without granting a real opportunity to respond cannot stand. Ex parte reassessment and penalty orders were therefore set aside.
The Court held that tax proceedings cannot continue without first determining who legally represents a deceased assessee. Orders passed without such determination were set aside.
The issue was taxation of LLP partner’s remuneration without applying Sections 28(v) and 40(b). The High Court set aside the assessment for failure to consider the statutory scheme, remanding the matter for fresh decision.
Karnataka High Court quashed the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice, allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to submit documents and replies before reconsideration.
Karnataka High Court set aside reassessment and penalty orders where the assessee could not file returns due to inactive email, granting a fresh opportunity to submit documents and pleadings.
The issue involved reassessment completed without a reply to the reopening notice. The Court set aside the orders and remanded the case to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity.
