The Court held that Section 73 requires a minimum three-month gap between show cause notice and final order. Orders passed within a shorter period were quashed as violative of natural justice.
Bombay High Court held that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after obtaining sanction under section 151 from the non-competent authority is invalid and not sustainable in law. Accordingly, notice is liable to be quashed and petition is allowed.
The Bombay High Court set aside a service tax demand on an advocate, holding that legal services were exempt under Notification Nos. 25/2012 and 30/2012. The Court ruled that the authorities acted without jurisdiction in proceeding contrary to binding notifications.
The High Court set aside a tax demand arising from foreign tax credit mismatch because no valid intimation under Section 143(1) was produced or served. It held that recovery cannot be enforced without mandatory service of notice of demand.
The High Court held that international roaming services are supplied to foreign telecom operators who pay consideration, not to individual subscribers. Since the recipient is located outside India, the services qualify as export, making the refund admissible.
The Court held that Section 119(2)(b) empowers condonation to avoid genuine hardship and rejected a hyper-technical denial of tax benefit. Delay in filing Form 10-IC was condoned and Section 115BAA benefit restored.
Reiterating limits under Sections 73 and 74, the court ruled that combining several tax years into one GST notice is legally impermissible, though fresh notices may be issued lawfully.
The Bombay High Court upheld the ITAT’s decision to admit an additional TP ground allowing reconsideration of AEs as the tested party. It held that no substantial question of law arose where the Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh factual examination.
The High Court set aside the assessment after finding that the order was passed before the scheduled video hearing. The ruling underscores that granting a requested personal hearing under Section 144B is mandatory.
The court held that once all GST dues, interest, and penalties are cleared, authorities must consider revocation of cancellation. Permanent cancellation after compliance was found unjustified and contrary to the statutory scheme.
