The Court ruled that once a resolution plan is approved, prior tax liabilities are extinguished. Notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1) for periods before approval were therefore invalid.
The Court held that tax proceedings cannot continue for periods covered by an approved resolution plan. It ruled that past claims stood extinguished, leading to the quashing of the Section 148 notice.
The Court ruled that reassessment notices issued by the JAO after 29 March 2022 were without jurisdiction. The proceedings and related orders were struck down.
Karnataka High Court held that blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger by invoking provisions of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [CGST Rules] is illegal and arbitrary since reasons to believe was not provided which is mandatory requirement for invoking Rule 86A.
Bombay High Court held that grant of approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act cannot be merely a ritualistic formality. Thus, proceedings u/s. 153A, based on approval u/s. 153D granted without application of mind, is vitiated.
Ram Ashish Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) The Delhi High Court delivered its order in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration dated 21st March, 2025, which was applied retrospectively from 14th June, 2024. The petitioner, operating from premises […]
The Telangana High Court upheld cancellation of a GST registration after authorities found the declared business premises non-existent and submitted rental agreements fraudulent.
High Court found that the Tribunal’s order involved only factual analysis from earlier years, leaving no question of law. Takeaway: Factual remands do not qualify for High Court intervention.
High Court quashed a GST adjudication order where authority failed to consider petitioner’s explanation regarding alleged differences between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, remanding matter for fresh hearing.
The Court remanded the matter after finding the tax order was passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply or be heard. The case will be reconsidered, subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the relevant notifications.
