The court held that arrest during a GST investigation was unlawful as mandatory safeguards under the BNSS were not followed. Failure to record reasons for arrest rendered the action invalid.
The issue was whether the income-tax e-filing utility could prevent an assessee from making a lawful set-off claim. The High Court held that procedural software cannot override statutory rights and directed that such claims must be allowed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a special audit under Section 142(2A) cannot stand where the mandatory approval lacks a DIN. The absence of DIN renders the approval non-existent in law, making the entire proceedings void from inception.
The court held that rejection of IGST refund interest on jurisdictional grounds could not defeat a diligent claim and allowed the taxpayer to approach the GST appellate authority without facing limitation hurdles.
The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
The Court held that sanction for reopening was taken under the wrong statutory provision. As a result, the reassessment notice and all consequential orders were set aside.
The High Court held that directing unilateral cancellation of a registered agreement was erroneous. Execution must follow lawful procedures under RERA and civil law principles.
The Court held that self-assessment tax paid due to failure of an initial IDS declaration must be treated as payment under the revived Scheme, preventing double taxation of the same income.
The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notices are issued in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist, rendering the entire assessment void.
The High Court ruled that tax authorities cannot ignore a binding ITAT Special Bench decision under Section 264 merely because the department has appealed it. Judicial discipline requires adherence unless the ruling is stayed or overturned.
