The Court examined denial of ITC and penalty imposed for alleged delayed filing of returns. It held that the return was filed before the cut-off date under Section 16(5) and directed reconsideration of the ITC claim.
Although the applicants highlighted the prolonged pendency of the case, the Court found that factual and legal issues remained to be examined at trial. The proceedings were therefore not quashed.
The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction where a statutory appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act was available. Liberty was granted to file the appeal before the prescribed deadline.
The High Court held that returns filed before the cut-off date specified in Section 16(5) entitled the taxpayer to claim ITC. It quashed the order denying ITC based on the limitation under Section 16(4).
The Gujarat High Court held that tax liabilities relating to periods before approval of a resolution plan stood extinguished under Section 31 of the IBC. Consequently, the assessment order and demand notice were quashed.
The Kerala High Court held that deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) was unavailable where borrowed money was invested as capital in a partnership firm and not used for the assessee’s own business.
The Court upheld the authority of DGGI officers to initiate and pursue proceedings under the CGST Act and rejected objections regarding their status as proper officers.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment after the Assessing Officer received information linking the assessee to alleged accommodation entries. The Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The Gujarat High Court upheld reopening of assessment based on information received from the Kolkata Investigation Wing regarding alleged shell companies. The Court held that such information provided tangible material for forming a belief that income had escaped assessment.
The case concerned reopening of completed income tax assessments based on information received from DRI and Central Excise authorities. The Delhi High Court held that such information constituted tangible material sufficient to justify reassessment proceedings.
