The impugned notices and orders were issued by the respondents/revenue admittedly subsequent to the public announcement under Section 15 of the Code regarding CIRP process pertaining to assessee and it was only subsequent to approval of the Resolution Plan of the Tribunal that Revenue issued the impugned Assessment Order and Demand Notice.
The order passed by CESTAT was without jurisdiction, the Revenue, thus, was right in observing that the refund order sanctioned in favour of the Firm pursuant to the order of CESTAT, was required to be reviewed.
Read the Delhi High Court judgment on Rajesh Gupta & Ors. vs DGFT. No permission for open market raw material purchase when Advance Authorization allows duty-free imports.
The HC, in its judgment, expressed dissatisfaction with the substantial time gap between the petitioner’s hearing and the issuance of the impugned order. The court held that the order was liable to be set aside considering this time lag. Additionally, it emphasized that the officer who passed the order had not heard the petitioner, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
Delhi High Court directs GST registration restoration after physical verification for Roxy Enterprises as Appellant not able to intimate change of Address due to GST Registration Cancellation
Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
Assessee was approached by Financial Creditor of FR Tech Innovations Private Limited (CD) for proposing the name of assessee as IRP in the company petition to be filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 in the NCLT, Mumbai Bench by the FR Tech Innovations Private Limited.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Since the legislature vested the discretion to extend the timeframe solely in the AO, he could not have abdicated that function and confined his role to only making a recommendation to the CIT. CIT had no role in extending the timeframe as the AO was in seisin of the assessment proceedings.
Delhi High Court’s decision in Sethi Sons (India) vs Asst. Commissioner, allowing belated refund applications due to technical glitches. Analysis of the case and its implications.
