The Bombay High Court set aside GST orders as they were based solely on Rule 96(10), which was omitted without a saving clause, and remanded no further action under that rule.
The issue was whether tax authorities could delay a GST refund ordered by the Appellate Authority due to a contemplated appeal. The Court held that unless the appellate order is stayed or set aside, it must be implemented.
The Court noted NCLT approval of a settlement scheme but held that existing attachment orders under PMLA would continue unless modified by competent authorities.
The Court considered whether funds deposited pursuant to earlier orders could be transferred under a sanctioned settlement scheme. Holding that the NCLT-approved scheme facilitated creditor settlement without overriding criminal proceedings, the Court directed transfer of the deposit to the settlement account.
The issue concerned summons issued during an ongoing enquiry into a complaint. The High Court held that no intervention was required while the enquiry was in progress.
The Court upheld rejection of a technical bid because the bidder submitted a GST clearance certificate issued by a private professional instead of the tax department. The ruling clarifies that statutory compliance certificates must come from competent government authorities when mandated by tender conditions.
The court held that testing and pairing of smart cards with set-top boxes amounted to permissible processing under Cenvat rules, not requiring reversal of credit.
The Bombay High Court held that insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors cannot continue before the DRT once CIRP of the corporate debtor is underway. Such proceedings must lie exclusively before the NCLT. The key takeaway is that Section 60 of the IBC overrides DRT jurisdiction in these cases.
The issue was whether employees can be taxed when employers deduct but do not deposit TDS. The Court held Section 205 absolutely bars such recovery, placing liability only on employers.
The High Court quashed a reassessment for A.Y. 2015–16 where the Section 148 notice was issued after 1 April 2021. Relying on the Revenue’s binding concession before the Supreme Court, all consequential actions were set aside.
