The Court found the appellate order to be unreasoned and based on non-application of mind. It set aside the decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Court ordered respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the petitioner’s GST refund representation. No findings were made on merits, and all issues remain open.
The Court ruled that the petitioner offered no justification for challenging a February 2023 inspection through a writ filed only in August 2025. It noted that factual disputes and the availability of an appeal remedy made the writ non-maintainable. However, the petitioner was permitted to approach the appellate authority within 30 days.
High Court dismissed writ petition, confirming that reassessment under Section 147 is valid when no incriminating material is found, and Section 153C is inapplicable.
The Calcutta High Court remanded the matter for adjudicating authority to compute service tax on consolidated rental income exceeding threshold limits. Co-owners are not treated as a single entity merely due to a joint account arrangement.
The court ruled that the petitioner cannot challenge a GST refund rejection via writ, as a statutory appeal exists. The order upheld the authority’s jurisdiction in processing refunds.
The Court held that uploading the show-cause notice only under the additional tab did not constitute valid service. The order and appeal rejection were set aside, and the petitioner was granted a fresh opportunity to reply.
The Court held that disputed factual issues must be examined through the statutory appellate mechanism and dismissed the writ appeal, directing the appellant to pursue the remedy under the GST Act.
Calcutta High Court rules that the Income Tax Department cannot retain a refund under Section 245 without an outstanding tax liability, ordering release of Rs.22,73,833/- with interest.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal against the ITAT, holding that the assessee properly identified shareholders and explained the share premium, making Section 68 inapplicable. The ruling confirms that proper documentation can prevent share capital additions.
