Delhi High Court held that simple default of loan payable outside India cannot restrict Indian Citizen to travel abroad since there is no civil or criminal proceedings against petitioner in India. Thus, impugned Look-Out Circular quashed.
The appellate authority’s reliance on an overwriting-ridden postal report was rejected. The Court found no valid proof of service and restored the appeal for reconsideration. e Court held that the GST order was not proven to be served on the taxpayer, making the appeal within limitation. The ruling sets aside the dismissal and directs fresh adjudication on merits.
Jharkhand High Court held that bail application in the case of fake firms for passing on ineligible ITC by issuing fake GST bills not granted since twin conditions of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] not fulfilled.
Delhi HC ruled that both jurisdictional and faceless officers can issue Section 148 notices. It reaffirmed that faceless regime does not eliminate JAO authority until Supreme Court decides otherwise.
Delhi HC set aside the orders after finding that hearing notices were neither emailed nor properly served. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision with mandatory opportunity of hearing.
Calcutta High Court held that the bail application of the petitioner involved in economic offence of more than Rs. 6200 crores rejected since there are 444 cases pending against the petitioner and also there are chances of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 5th April 2022 is barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal decision and prior High Court rulings.
The Gujarat High Court held that a notice issued under Section 148A(b) was procedurally flawed as it functioned as a Section 148A(a) inquiry. The notice, order under Section 148A(d), and subsequent notice under Section 148 were quashed.
The Court held that the search was valid after reviewing the recorded reasons and information. It ruled that jurisdiction existed under Section 132 and that challenges to procedural aspects did not invalidate the search.
Court confirms that income from resale of immovable property is taxable under Finance Act 1994. Extended limitation period and penalties remain valid.
