The Court noted that the GST-related allegation concerned only the firm’s proprietor, while the petitioners were merely agents. Anticipatory bail was granted with directions to surrender and comply with statutory conditions.
The Court dismissed the petition after holding that statutory remedies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act must be exhausted first. It allowed the petitioners to approach the DRT for their grievances.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that addition towards unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act upheld since assessee company failed to substantiate identity and creditworthiness of lender.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued by the jurisdictional officer after the faceless regime came into force were without authority. All related proceedings were quashed, and the ITAT appeal was directed to be closed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities misread the amended notification on Chapter 31 goods and failed to show that the imports were clearly excluded. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of the exemption’s scope.
The Court ruled that assessment notices for earlier years were void because the tax authorities did not lodge claims before the resolution plan was approved. Once the plan attained finality, all excluded claims stood extinguished under binding IBC principles. The judgment also holds that the revenue cannot deny carry-forward of losses after failing to participate in the insolvency process.
The Court ruled that the petitioner offered no justification for challenging a February 2023 inspection through a writ filed only in August 2025. It noted that factual disputes and the availability of an appeal remedy made the writ non-maintainable. However, the petitioner was permitted to approach the appellate authority within 30 days.
SC disposes of Revenue SLPs; TOLA applies but reassessment timelines remain strictly enforced.
The High Court set aside a GST demand after finding the confirmed amount exceeded the sum proposed in the show-cause notice, holding the order violative of Section 75(7). The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
The High Court held that a penalty exceeding the amount proposed in the show cause notice violated statutory limits, setting aside the penalty order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
