Karnataka High Court held that the Income tax returns, assessment particulars and related financial details do constitute “personal information” within the meaning of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Bombay High Court stayed recovery and adjudication in GST cases involving assignment of leasehold rights. The court held that interim protection is justified since the legal issue is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.
The High Court held that Section 94 of the BNSS only allows authorities to call for documents and does not empower police to freeze bank accounts. Since the account was frozen without proper statutory authority, the action was declared illegal.
Once the earlier Order-in-Appeal determining assessee s entitlement to drawback had attained finality and was accepted by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) in a subsequent proceeding could not reopen or revisit the issue of eligibility for drawback while examining the consequential order.
The High Court held that effective service requires authorities to consider alternative modes when there is no response to portal notices. The impugned order was therefore set aside.
The court quashed orders reversing ITC that were based solely on limitation under Section 16(4). It held that the amendment inserting Section 16(5) allowed ITC claims for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 up to 30.11.2021.
The Court held that rejection of condonation for a 50-day delay in filing Form 10B was improper when genuine hardship was demonstrated. It directed authorities to treat the audit report as filed within time and process the return accordingly.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST assessment order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication with proper notice and hearing.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition noting that the assessment order remained unchallenged for nearly eleven months, but allowed the taxpayer to file an appeal with additional deposit.
The court found that the statutory requirement for service of notice was not met when the department relied only on portal-based communication after cancellation of registration.
