The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST cancellation order, ruling that the retrospective cancellation date was invalid as the show-cause notice failed to explicitly propose it.
Delhi High Court permitted petitioners to seek anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 438 for CGST offences, citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Radhika Agarwal case. The interim protection was extended for two weeks to allow the petitioners to apply for bail.
Court directed a fresh assessment, holding that flavoured milk is correctly classified as milk with added sugar (Entry 0402). This classification takes precedence over general beverage entry, ensuring lower 5% GST rate applies.
Karnataka High Court held that a reassessment notice issued on 7 May 2024 for AY 2017–18 was beyond six-year limitation period under Section 149 of Income Tax Act and therefore invalid.
The Karnataka High Court quashed the entire chain of faceless reassessment proceedings, including Section 148A, Section 147, and penalty orders. The ruling was based on the reason that the notices were issued by the jurisdictional AO outside the mandatory procedure of Section 151A (Faceless Assessment Scheme). The key takeaway is the non-compliance with the statutory mechanism for faceless proceedings invalidates the entire reassessment.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that reassessment under Section 153A is invalid when no incriminating material is found during a search. The Court held that conversion of a firm into a company, fulfilling Section 47(xiii) conditions, is not taxable as a transfer.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court definitively ruled that Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) lack the authority to issue reassessment notices (u/s 148A/148) after the Faceless Assessment Scheme (Section 151A) was notified in 2022. The court quashed the notices and orders, establishing that the faceless mechanism is the exclusive forum for initiating reassessment proceedings.
Penalty of Rs. 25.53 Cr. on Hindustan Coca-Cola was quashed as assessee had not collected any amount by way of sales tax during the exemption period, and the Revenue’s assumption of implicit tax collection was unsustainable.
Rejecting the petitioner’s request to keep recovery in abeyance, the Madras HC directed the assessee to comply with the mandatory 20% pre-deposit for AY 2019-2020. Failure to pay will result in the initiation of coercive recovery measures.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST show-cause notice and assessment order, ruling them invalid due to the mandatory absence of a DIN. The Tax Department must conduct a fresh assessment after assigning a DIN.
