The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 234D applies to excess income tax refunds issued before June 1, 2003, by following its earlier binding decision. The ITAT order was set aside and the Revenue’s appeal was allowed.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition after holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy before the NCLAT under Section 61 of the IBC. The Court ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked when such an alternative remedy exists.
The Karnataka High Court directed removal of encroachments from the road margin and civic amenity site after holding that the land claimant had no established right over the property. The Court dismissed the challenge to the survey and ordered action within eight weeks.
The Kerala High Court held that merely reporting eligible IGST credit under CGST and SGST instead of IGST did not amount to excess input tax credit or justify proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act.
Delhi High Court ruled that the amendment restricting Explanation 2(e) applies prospectively and cannot take away vested refund rights relating to earlier tax periods. The Department was directed to decide the refund claims on merits.
The Karnataka High Court set aside the impugned order after finding that the entire tax demand had been recovered despite an interim judicial stay. It directed refund of the amount recovered beyond the 20% pre-deposit and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an assessment order after finding that the assessee was given only three hours’ notice for a video conference despite seeking a later hearing. The matter was remanded with directions to provide a proper opportunity to reply and participate in a fresh hearing.
The High Court held that a GST penalty order passed without issuing a prior show cause notice violates Section 75(4) of the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. The penalty was quashed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
The Bombay High Court held that bad debt deduction cannot be denied where the debt was effectively written off through accounting entries despite the debtor’s account remaining open due to pending litigation. The ruling emphasizes substance over accounting form.
The Calcutta High Court held that a sanction order must reflect consideration of the taxpayer’s explanation and provide reasons for rejecting it. As these requirements were absent, the sanction order was quashed and remanded for reconsideration.
