The Court examined whether a sanction lacking a DIN could sustain income-tax proceedings. It held such sanction invalid and set aside the consequential orders.
The Court will examine whether corporate guarantees issued by a parent company to its subsidiaries amount to a taxable supply under GST, while granting interim protection against coercive action.
Contempt Petition was not maintainable, as the NCLT had independent and effective jurisdiction under Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 to punish for contempt of its own orders, including those passed under the IBC.
Bombay High Court held that revisionary order which set aside eviction order is not sustainable in law. Court also held that using AI tool as aid for filing submission without verifying its content is not acceptable.
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.
