Bombay High Court sets aside Section 148 notice in Anil Kumar Mehta vs ITO, citing procedural issues. Case remanded for fresh consideration by assessing officer.
Madras High Court held that issuance of notice in the name of assessee unjustified as Official Assignee has taken charge of the entire estate of the original assessee. Once the assets are taken over by official assignee the notice issued to dead person is non est in law.
Patna High Court held that invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unjustified as lack of jurisdiction and the absence of compliance with principles of natural justice have been merely raised but not substantiated.
Madras High Court orders Department to review appeal by Sri Shanmuga Motors, filed beyond condonable period, on its merits, disregarding limitation issues.
Kerala High Court held that failure of investigating officer to seek permission before conducting further investigation cannot be the reason to held supplementary/additional final report invalid.
Held that Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules, as inserted by notification 53/2018-CT dated 09-10-2018 w.e.f. 23-10-2017 is declared ultra vires the provisions of Section 16 of the IGST Act and unenforceable on account of being manifestly arbitrary.
Bombay High Court directed the State of Maharashtra [including BMC, CIDCO, MIDC, MHADA, BEST and Municipal Corporation of Nagpur] to ensure that there is no abuse or misuse of public funds for issuing advertisements for extraneous purpose.
Additionally, the assessee had also entered into transaction for IT support services for a value of ₹1,61,29,274/- in respect of purchase of computer hardware components. AO made a reference to the TPO for determining/verifying the ALP.
This would lead one to the inescapable conclusion of no perceivable or plausible tax liability possibly being created. Consequently, the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs‟ and their continuance would be futile and impractical.
Further, in reference application filed under the Settlement Act, the Dy CST passed an order of settlement u/s 13(1) and arrived at the same figure of the settlement amount which were calculated by the assessee in its application.
