The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Court held that notices under Sections 148A and 148 issued by the JAO were invalid as the faceless procedure mandated by Section 151A was not followed. All impugned notices and orders were quashed.
The High Court ruled that reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 was issued by the jurisdictional officer instead of through the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The Court set aside the notices for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
Bombay High Court held that delay in filing of Form No. 9A due to first year of its introduction is genuine and hence the same is condoned. Further, also held that if delay is not condoned there will be genuine hardship to charitable trust.
The Court ruled that assessment notices for earlier years were void because the tax authorities did not lodge claims before the resolution plan was approved. Once the plan attained finality, all excluded claims stood extinguished under binding IBC principles. The judgment also holds that the revenue cannot deny carry-forward of losses after failing to participate in the insolvency process.
Court held that tax authorities cannot refuse ITC refund to SEZ units merely because related precedent is under challenge. Until reversed, Britannia remains binding and must be followed.
Bombay High Court held that dispute between SEBI and petitioner regarding opening of Demat Account in fictitious and benami name and making of large applications in IPO is settled and the said dispute is predominantly commercial in nature having little criminal overtone. Hence, order quashed and set aside.
The appellate authority’s reliance on an overwriting-ridden postal report was rejected. The Court found no valid proof of service and restored the appeal for reconsideration. e Court held that the GST order was not proven to be served on the taxpayer, making the appeal within limitation. The ruling sets aside the dismissal and directs fresh adjudication on merits.
The Bombay High Court held that a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 5th April 2022 is barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court’s Rajeev Bansal decision and prior High Court rulings.
