The High Court held that reassessment notices issued after excluding periods mandated by Supreme Court rulings were time-barred, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid
The Court set aside GST assessment and appellate orders after noting a prima facie case that tax and interest were already paid, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication.
The case involved a challenge to an assessment order that was later revised under rectification provisions. The Court ruled that once rectified, the original demand ceases to exist and cannot be separately challenged.
The dispute concerned how aggregate average advances should be computed for bad debt provisions. The Court held that cumulative month-end outstanding advances, not incremental lending, must be used.
The issue was whether delay in approaching the Court was fatal despite exceptional facts. The Court ruled that restoration was warranted due to prolonged tribunal proceedings and late service.
The Court held that cancellation arising from a part-time accountant’s lapse warranted relief. Registration was revived with strict conditions on compliance and ITC utilization.
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reassessment was justified as the original order contained no reference to the deduction claim. Mere filing of computation does not bar reopening.
The Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the assessing officer failed to verify whether cash deposits were used to create a fixed deposit. The case was remanded for fresh consideration after proper examination.
The court held that deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC can be claimed simultaneously, subject only to an overall cap of 100% of business profits.
Madras High Court held that seizure of Indian Currency under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 without issuance of show cause notice within stipulated time period as prescribed u/s. 110(2) is without authority of law. Accordingly, seizure memo is liable to be quashed.
