The Court held that adjusting a refund against a disputed demand during the subsistence of a stay order is illegal and arbitrary, directing release of the refund with interest.
The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts without independent inquiry is insufficient. The ruling protects taxpayers from mechanical and assumption-based proceedings.
Orissa High Court held that assessment order set aside as proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act initiated without serving of statutory notice. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO to serve notice u/s. 148 as not hit by limitation u/s. 149.
The Court held that rejecting an appeal for wrong jurisdiction without proper mechanism was a mistake. It restored the appeal and directed its transmission to the correct authority.
The issue involved whether objections to land acquisition were time-barred. The Court held that the limitation period begins from newspaper publication, making the objections valid and rejecting the challenge.
The court examined whether penalty and detention without notifying the known owner violated natural justice. Interim relief allowed release of goods on deposit.
The court quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that it was issued a day after the hearing despite a pending writ petition. The ruling emphasized that such haste violated principles of natural justice.
Once the earlier Order-in-Appeal determining assessee s entitlement to drawback had attained finality and was accepted by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) in a subsequent proceeding could not reopen or revisit the issue of eligibility for drawback while examining the consequential order.
Orissa High Court held that post search operation all pending assessments/reassessments doesn’t not automatically get abated as provisions of section 158BA(2) of the Income Tax Act. Matter must specifically fall within Block Assessment Scheme for abatement. However, writ dismissed as power under Article 226 not invoked.
The High Court set aside a Section 63 GST assessment passed against an unregistered contractor after authorities admitted confusion caused by identical names and incorrect reliance on WAMIS data.
