he Telangana High Court allowed the assessee to file a statutory appeal within two weeks with the prescribed pre-deposit. It directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal in accordance with law, taking into account that the writ petition had been pursued.
The Telangana High Court refused to entertain the writ petition as it was filed after considerable delay without any satisfactory explanation. It held that the statutory appellate remedy could not be bypassed after the limitation period expired.
The Telangana High Court directed the tax authority to consider the petitioners representation by a reasoned order within thirty days. It disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The Telangana High Court held that issuance of multiple GST show cause notices and orders for the same tax period is amenable to rectification under Section 161 of the TGST Act. It directed the proper officer to undertake rectification in accordance with law.
The Telangana High Court permitted the assessee to file a statutory appeal against the GST order within two weeks with the required pre-deposit. It directed the appellate authority to consider the delay while deciding the appeal in accordance with law.
The Gauhati High Court held that a taxpayer whose GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns could seek restoration by complying with the proviso to Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules. It directed the authority to consider the application in accordance with law after compliance.
The Gujarat High Court directed release of the petitioner’s attached bank accounts after the State admitted that no findings under Form DRC-18 had been recorded. The Court, however, allowed the authorities to pursue recovery from the company or its responsible directors in accordance with law.
The Calcutta High Court held that the Income Tax Department cannot deny Form 5 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme due to a technical portal error that wrongly mapped the taxpayer’s payment. It directed correction of the error and issuance of Form 5 after verification of the challan.
The Calcutta High Court held that KMC’s retrospective enhancement of Annual Valuation and consequential property tax demands lacked statutory authority and violated mandatory procedural safeguards. The Court restored the earlier valuation and permitted fresh assessment only in accordance with the KMC Act.
The Delhi High Court held that Google could not use the registered trademark HINDWARE as advertising keywords and granted a permanent injunction. The Court also awarded ₹30 lakh in nominal damages and litigation costs.
