Karnataka High Court invalidated reassessment proceedings and related notices for AY 2015-16, holding that actions initiated beyond Section 151A are legally void.
The High Court held that granting less than seven days to reply to a show-cause notice violates mandatory SOPs. Such a breach vitiates the entire faceless assessment process.
Calcutta High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income Tax Act based on the same survey material which was already accepted by AO in earlier proceedings is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.
Delhi High Court held that denial of benefit of Input Tax Credit [ITC] due to non-filing of TRAN-1 not justified since the form was not filed in time due to technical glitch in the GST portal or transitional creases which were ironed out subsequently. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The case examined whether assessments under Section 153C were valid without proper recording of statutory satisfaction. The Court remanded the matter, holding that jurisdiction must be decided before examining additions on merits.
The High Court ruled that wilful default and pending recovery proceedings do not, by themselves, justify Look Out Circulars. Without criminal cases or proof of higher economic harm, restricting travel violates Article 21.
Karnataka High Court quashes demand of GST against Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission by concluding that regulatory function discharged by commission doesn’t qualify as taxable supply. Accordingly, order and notice quashed.
Kerala High Court held that Competition Commission of India [CCI] possess jurisdiction for investigating anti-competitive practices in telecommunication sector inspite of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 regulations.
Gujarat High Court held that software consultancy services to parent company located outside India provided on principal to principal basis qualifies as export of service and cannot be considered as intermediary service.
The judgment clarified that delayed installment interest arises from a debtor–creditor relationship, not a service supply, and therefore cannot be subjected to GST.
