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 ITAT observed that mere remote access to customer-owned systems does not satisfy the disposal and permanence tests required for constituting a Fixed Place PE under the India-Canada DTAA.
NCLT Chandigarh ordered liquidation of the Corporate Debtor after the Committee of Creditors rejected the only resolution plan received during CIRP. The Tribunal held that requirements under Section 33 of the IBC had been fully satisfied.
CESTAT Bangalore held that services rendered by a sub-contractor for authorized operations within an SEZ are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal ruled that exemption cannot be denied merely because services were provided through main contractors.
ITAT Bangalore held that the Income Tax Act does not bar a trust from filing a fresh Section 80G application merely because an earlier rejection was not challenged. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after holding the “void-ab-initio” finding unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
The Karnataka High Court remitted GST proceedings after noting allegations that duplicate adjudication orders were passed for the same tax period on ITC mismatch issues. The Court directed fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It observed that valuation is based on assumptions and future business expectations prevailing on valuation date.
