The Tribunal ruled that participation by a legal heir does not validate notices and assessment orders issued in the name of a deceased assessee. Proceedings must be initiated strictly under Section 159 against legal representatives.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
Delhi HC held that proviso to Section 45 of PMLA grants discretionary relief to women accused and stringent twin bail conditions would not ordinarily apply unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
Gauhati High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without assigning reasons in FORM GST REG-19 was illegal and violated statutory requirements. The Court restored the matter and granted the taxpayer fresh opportunity to respond.
CESTAT Delhi remanded the matter after finding that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appellant’s affidavit and explanation regarding delayed receipt of the order. The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances required fresh examination.
CESTAT Mumbai upheld demand, interest, and penalty for failure to reverse SAD Cenvat credit on imported inputs transferred between units. The Tribunal held that extended limitation was valid due to suppression in ER-1 returns.
The Madras High Court quashed prosecution under Sections 276CC and 278B after finding that the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant assessment year. The Court relied on Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
The Tribunal referred to HSN notes stating that Chapter 9616 does not cover dispersing appliances falling under Chapter 8424. Based on this reasoning, the imported soap dispenser was classified under CTI 8424 89 90.
Bombay High Court held that GST proceedings initiated against a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation were void ab initio. The Court quashed the demand order passed in the name of the amalgamating entity.
