The Court held that insolvency law cannot be used to sidestep a maintenance order. It ruled that the petitioner’s plea lacked legal foundation and refused to declare him insolvent.
The Court held that earlier orders ignored relevant High Court decisions interpreting Rule 90(3). The refund claim must now be reconsidered afresh within a fixed timeline.
Bombay High Court held that customs duty paid on goods lost or rendered unavailable before the time of clearance for home consumptions is liable to be refunded back in terms of section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The Court held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed while the quantum appeal was still pending before the ITAT. The penalty was stayed for being premature under Section 275(1)(a).
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
The High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of through the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The Court set aside the notices for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 9A due to first year of its introduction is genuine and hence the same is condoned. Further, also held that if delay is not condoned there will be genuine hardship to charitable trust.
