The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST demand order after notices were sent to the petitioner’s email Junk Folder, preventing awareness and response. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioner can submit replies and be heard.
The Court ruled that services rendered remotely cannot create a PE because the treaty requires services furnished within India through employees. virtual presence cannot substitute physical presence without treaty amendment.
The Court held that assessments under Section 73 without prior Rule 142(1)(A) notices are invalid. Section 61 scrutiny must be completed first, and unsatisfactory explanations require issuance of the notice. The assessments were quashed, and the matter remanded to the proper officer.
The Court held that Section 44AF, as a special provision, overrides the requirements of Section 139(9). It ruled that treating the return as defective was unjustified and directed issuance of the refund.
The Court held that extended pre-trial detention would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial. It relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged incarceration in documentary-based cases. Bail was therefore granted on strict terms.
The Court held that the appellate authority set aside a refund without proper scrutiny or reasoning. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on whether the services constituted export or intermediary services.
The Delhi High Court seeks an explanation for why certain GST demands were dropped despite the officer stating disagreement, highlighting procedural inconsistencies in tax assessment.
The Court held that the Petitioner misrepresented the date of receiving the provisional attachment notice. Bank accounts cannot be freely operated, subject to a minimum balance of ₹1 crore.
The Telangana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued for AY 2017-18 was invalid and barred by the six-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 149. Reopening assessments beyond the prescribed period is impermissible.
The Gujarat High Court held a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act invalid as it was issued beyond the permissible “surviving time” defined by the Supreme Court.
