The Telangana High Court held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 148A and 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after implementation of the faceless scheme were without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the notices while preserving the Revenue’s rights subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.
The Telangana High Court permitted manual filing of a revocation application even after dismissal of a delayed appeal against GST registration cancellation. The ruling highlights that procedural delays and portal limitations should not deprive taxpayers of an opportunity to seek restoration of registration.
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order restoring appeals through review proceedings is not separately appealable under the Benami Act. The Court ruled that Order 47 Rule 7 CPC barred such challenges.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the taxpayer filed pending returns and undertook to pay applicable tax, interest, late fees, and penalties. The ruling reiterates that eligible taxpayers may seek relief under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.
The High Court granted bail in a POCSO case after noting that the victim did not support the prosecution story in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The Court also considered the filing of the charge sheet and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
The Court observed that the documents produced indicated a sale of immovable property, which is not subject to GST. The matter was sent back to the tax authorities for a fresh decision on merits.
The Madras High Court remitted Section 74A GST orders for fresh adjudication after taxpayers argued that their replies to DRC-01 notices were not considered. The Court directed a 10% pre-deposit and mandated reconsideration on merits.
High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presumptions. High Court ruled that breach of Section 269SS may attract penalty but does not make a cash loan unenforceable under NI Act.
The Madras High Court held that GST authorities cannot issue a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years. The Court ruled that separate notices and adjudication are required for each year under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.
The Madras High Court held that filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under Section 246A does not require any mandatory pre-deposit. The Court upheld the direction to pursue the statutory remedy and protected the appellant on limitation.
