An assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, such as a company that has been amalgamated into another, was a fundamental jurisdictional error and was null and void from the beginning.
Telangana High Court held that genuineness and validity of will are civil disputes and should not be adjudicated by TSGST authorities since appropriate jurisdiction in such matter lies with the Civil Court.
Delhi High Court held that VAT Act and the Finance Act are disparate in character as far as levy and collection of tax is concerned. Thus, demand based on comparison of returns filed under VAT Act and Finance Act is erroneous. Accordingly, appeal of department dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that GST SCN uploaded on ‘Additional Notices Tab’ was not brought to the knowledge of the petitioner. Hence, ex-parte order was passed without providing an opportunity to challenge SCN on merits. Thus, matter remanded back.
Allahabad High Court held that in absence of valid service of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment cannot be initiated. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
Karnataka High Court held that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings and therefore no reassessment of income for the relevant assessment year could be made under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that White Petroleum Jelly of IP grade is liable to be classified as a category of drug and medicine under Entry 19-A of Part II, Schedule II of the MP VAT Act. Accordingly, order dated 14.05.2019 quashed.
Calcutta HC dismisses S.A. Exports’ Rs.66 lakh duty credit claim under Incremental Exports Scheme, ruling the seven-year delay post-favorable judgment was impermissible.
Delhi High Court uses Article 226 to restore GST registration, finding the delay in filing returns was due to the department denying portal access after initial cancellation.
Re-testing of seized goods under Public Notice No.97/2017 was a facilitative right and could not be denied except on exceptional grounds duly recorded. Customs’ objection based on limitation and remnant sample requirement was also rejected and fresh sampling and re-testing was directed, with provisional release of goods permitted.
