The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings are invalid when notices are issued in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist, rendering the entire assessment void.
The High Court examined whether the borrower was denied the mandatory 30-day period before auction under SARFAESI. Relying on the post-2016 legal position, it held that sufficient time was available and the sale was valid.
The High Court held that mandating monthly ISD credit distribution through rules exceeded the powers granted under the CGST Act. Procedural rules cannot impose time limits absent legislative authorization.
Rajasthan High Court held that appellate authorities cannot extend limitation beyond Section 107 of CGST Act, but condoned delay as the petitioner had sought registration cancellation and reasonably missed the portal order, directing appeal hearing on merits.
The Tribunal recognised that funds could not be used due to a High Court injunction. Such legally restrained non-utilisation cannot be treated as a statutory violation.
An unregistered Agreement to Sell (A2S) did not prevent recognition of asset transfer in the context of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as once consideration was paid and possession transferred
The Tribunal ruled that inventory figures from a management Excel sheet, without quantity details or physical verification, cannot form the basis of an addition. Properly recorded GST-compliant sales explained the variance.
The Revenue argued AMP functions required separate compensation under DEMPE principles. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that consistent past rulings prevail absent material factual change.
Holding that justice requires a reasoned order after hearing both sides, the Tribunal remanded the appeals. Continued non-cooperation may still permit ex parte disposal.
Finding that the Assessing Officer acted beyond section 151A, the Court quashed the reopening notices. The ruling highlights that reassessment cannot proceed without valid jurisdictional foundation.
