The Bombay High Court set aside reassessment, demand, and penalty proceedings after finding that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation.
The Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot cover multiple financial years. Such consolidation violates the statutory limitation structure and prejudices the assessee’s rights.
The Court held that assignment of leasehold rights in an industrial plot amounts to transfer of benefits arising from immovable property and does not constitute a supply of services under GST.
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 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 High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
The Court ruled that a person who is neither a director, shareholder, nor employee of a company cannot be made liable for its tax dues through attachment of a personal bank account.
The Bombay High Court held that a separate cooperative society could not be registered for shops forming part of a single building already governed by an existing society. The Court ruled that registration under Section 9 cannot be used to indirectly fragment an existing society.
The Bombay High Court set aside a consolidated GST show cause notice covering five financial years, holding that Section 74 mandates year-wise assessment and limitation. The ruling clarifies that tax demands must strictly follow the statutory financial year structure.
The Court declined to exempt the Managing Director from appearance under Section 70 CGST, noting he verified the petition on oath. The ruling emphasizes accountability in GST investigations.
