Calcutta High Court directed the CGST authorities to defer proceedings on a show-cause notice that clubbed four financial years. The petitioner argued that such bunching and lack of scrutiny under Section 61 violated due process.
ITAT Pune held that issue of taxability of ex-gratia payment to be decided based on identical judgement as decided by coordinate bench of Tribunal in Mahadev Vasant Dhangekar. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
Karnataka High Court held that notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued and served without signature of the Assessing Officer is a foundational defect and the same cannot be ignored. Accordingly, assessment order passed thereon is invalid.
Gauhati High Court held that statement of tax determination under section 73(3) of the CGST Act does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1). Further, passing of an adverse order without opportunity of personal hearing is against principles of natural justice.
The Kerala High Court halted recovery action, ruling that it is improper to pursue tax collection once the appeal hearing before the NFAC has concluded and orders are merely awaited. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously before coercive steps can continue.
The Kerala High Court ruled that tax recovery proceedings must be held in abeyance when an assessee’s delay condonation and stay petitions are pending before the appellate authority (NFAC). The Court emphasized that the Revenue has a duty to act fairly and decide these procedural applications before initiating coercive recovery action.
Kerala High Court mandated that the CPC, Bengaluru, must dispose of an assessee’s grievance petition challenging a Section 143(1) intimation within three months. Recovery proceedings based on the impugned intimation are stayed until the CPC issues its final decision.
Kerala High Court halted coercive tax recovery, directing the NFAC to first dispose of the pending Section 154 rectification petition. The ruling ensures fairness by suspending recovery when a procedural dismissal (based on a 704-day delay) is being challenged.
The Kerala High Court ruled that once appeal hearings are completed before the CIT(A), the Revenue must wait for the final orders before initiating coercive recovery action. The CIT(A) was directed to dispose of the pending income tax appeals within a strict two-month timeframe.
The Kerala High Court ruled that coercive tax recovery against an assessee must be kept in abeyance while the NFAC considers the pending delay condonation and stay petitions. The Court directed the NFAC to decide the delay condonation petition within two months, and if successful, rule on the stay petition within one month thereafter.
