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.
The Bombay High Court permitted videography of statements and allowed an advocate to sit at a visible but not audible distance during a Section 70 CGST inquiry. The relief was granted considering the petitioner’s medical condition and willingness to cooperate.
The Court granted ad-interim relief, holding prima facie that no under-reporting arose where deduction was claimed based on a binding High Court judgment later overruled. Coercive recovery was stayed.
The Court upheld condonation of 116 days’ delay in filing revision, holding that internal decision-making in a large organization constituted sufficient cause and warranted limited appellate interference.
Holding that the GST Act prescribes separate assessment and limitation for each year, the Court quashed a notice combining multiple tax periods. Authorities were granted liberty to issue fresh notices in compliance with the Act.
The Bombay High Court held that a lender’s certificate under Section 24(b) is not required for let-out properties assessed on actual rent. Reassessment beyond four years was invalid as there was no failure of disclosure or fresh tangible material.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST Act] for inquiry do not constitute illegal detention. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
The Bombay High Court quashed Question No.73 of Circular 21/2020, holding that prosecution unrelated to tax arrear cannot bar settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The ruling clarifies that exclusion applies only to tax arrears linked to prosecution.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Bombay High Court held that a single show cause notice under Section 74 covering multiple financial years is impermissible. The ruling emphasizes that limitation and assessment under GST operate year-wise.
