Kerala High Court held that Section 149 of the Customs Act is an additional remedy available to the person who seek amendment of the Bill of Entry. Thus, modification of the assessment order can be either under section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act i.e. Section 149.
Madras High Court overturns GST orders due to lack of hearing. Read the full judgment of Tenkasi Shencottai Taluk Vs State Tax Officer. Legal analysis and conclusion provided.
In Kanak Timber House v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Calcutta High Court rules seized goods can’t be released via writ petition, invoking sub-section (6) of Section 67 CGST Act.
Department argued that it had not received the ITAT’s order through proper channels, thus absolving itself of responsibility. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that once the Department became aware of the ITAT’s order, it was obligated to comply within the stipulated time frame.
Delhi HC explains why NFAC cannot invoke Section 144B of the Income Tax Act if a claim is not lodged within the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) timeframe. Detailed analysis based on M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre.
Madras High Court quashes order due to failure to respond to SCN, disparity in GSTR returns confirms GST demand. Detailed analysis & conclusion provided.
Delhi High Court’s judgment on Archit Khandelwal vs Pr. Commissioner of DGST Delhi regarding the retrospective cancellation of GST registration due to discontinuing business.
In the case of Dipak Kumar Agarwal Vs Assessing Officer, Allahabad HC rules that the power of the assessing authority to decide on the release of seized assets is not automatically abated after 120 days under S.132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Allahabad High Court sets aside assessment order due to inadequate notice, mandates fair hearing for house tax assessment. Full judgment analysis here.
The court’s deliberation highlights the absence of any challenge to the initial re-assessment order or its revision by the Commissioner. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the principle that one assessment order per assessee per assessment year should prevail unless annulled or set aside by a competent authority or court.
