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.
Bombay High Court held that adjustments under Section 143(1)(a) are invalid if prior intimation is not issued and response not considered, reaffirming mandatory compliance.
The Court held that interest income on securities accrues on the due date of payment and not on a daily basis. As the issue was covered by binding precedents, no substantial question of law arose.
The Court held that once arrears for later years were settled under the Settlement Act, no outstanding demand survived. Adjusting earlier refunds against settled dues was declared illegal and without authority of law.
The Court quashed the denial of GST refund, holding that the appellate authority failed to properly analyse whether services to the parent company qualified as export or intermediary services. Matter remanded for fresh decision.
Observing that six out of ten heirs supported the nominee and only one objected, the Court restored the membership decision. It held that revisional interference was unwarranted in absence of eligibility dispute.
