The High Court ruled that deduction of broken period interest on HTM securities was a settled legal issue and could not justify reopening of assessment. The reassessment proceedings were set aside as lacking legal basis.
The Bombay High Court held that transportation services in CIF imports form part of a composite supply and cannot be taxed separately under GST. The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Mohit Minerals to quash the demand.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to a GST arrest after finding that the authorities had complied with statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and due procedure was followed.
The Bombay High Court held that a GST adjudication order imposing demand beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice violates Section 75(7) of the GST law. The Court quashed both the notice and the final order as unsustainable.
The Bombay High Court held that show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot combine multiple financial years into a single proceeding. The Court ruled that GST assessments and limitation periods operate separately for each financial year.
The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DRAT Chairperson was unavailable to hear the petitioners’ restoration applications. The Court granted limited interim protection until 20 May 2026.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST rectification order after finding that it was passed without granting the taxpayer an opportunity of personal hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to pass a reasoned order.
The Bombay High Court granted interim protection against recovery of GST penalty after the petitioner argued that liability could not be imposed merely because he was an employee.
The Bombay High Court held that the search authorisation under Section 132 was invalid because the satisfaction note lacked relevant material and failed to establish a genuine reason to believe. The Court quashed the search and all consequential proceedings.
