The petitioner argued that each assessment year requires separate consideration, including limitation aspects. The High Court issued notice and stayed further adjudication.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied merely because the sellers registration was cancelled retrospectively. A purchaser is entitled to rely on a valid registration existing at the time of transaction.
Jeel Kandla Service & Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Calcutta High Court) The appeal arose from a judgment of a Single Judge dismissing a writ petition challenging an order of the Regional Director, Eastern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which had permitted shifting the registered office of a company from West Bengal to […]
The petitioner challenged a single Section 74 GST notice issued for FY 2018-19 to FY 2023-24. The High Court issued notice and stayed the passing of the final order pending further proceedings.
Smt. Jayamma W/O. Late Sri. Kalegowda Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Karnataka High Court) The Karnataka High Court considered a challenge to a provisional attachment order issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner contended that the ED had failed to comply with […]
The Court held that once the GSTAT became functional and appeal timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued before the statutory forum. The petitioner was directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 112(8).
ITAT Hyderabad held that an addition based solely on discrepancies in unaudited Tally-generated statements was unsustainable. The Tribunal accepted the audited financial statements and ordered deletion of the ₹36.5 lakh addition.
The Court emphasized that procedural defaults should not override substantive tax benefits where genuine hardship exists. It directed tax authorities to consider delayed returns and proceed with assessments in accordance with law.
The Madras High Court held that letters issued to customers before determination of tax liability could not be used for recovery action. The Court ruled that such communications were invalid in the absence of a crystallised tax demand.
The Allahabad High Court held that a taxpayer cannot effectively respond to a show cause notice without access to the documents relied upon by the department. The order under Section 74 was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
