Tax News & Updates

The Delhi HC held that it was improbable that an assessee would remain inactive despite huge tax demands if the orders had actually been served. The Court also found it difficult to accept that the Department would remain dormant for several years despite allegedly pending demands since 2013. Accordingly, the impugned notice u/s 220(1) was quashed, and the assessee was granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies without limitation objection.

The Court held that retrospective cancellation without prior notice and recorded reasons violated statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. Relying on Bansal Casting v. Union of India, the Court observed that retrospective cancellation requires specific reasons, supporting material, and clear notice to the assessee. The Court set aside the SCN and all consequential orders, while granting liberty to the department to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

The Delhi HC held that the earlier provisional attachment had already lapsed by statutory operation u/s 83(2), and repeated attachment on identical facts was impermissible. The Court observed that there was no new material or changed circumstance to justify the issuance of a fresh provisional attachment order after completion of assessment proceedings. Relying on Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Asstt. CST, the Court quashed the impugned attachment orders and directed the defreezing of the assessees bank accounts.

The HC held that for AY 2015-16, notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 u/s 148 and 148A were time-barred under the amended reassessment regime read with TOLA. The Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by the SC decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Accordingly, the Court quashed all reassessment notices and consequential proceedings, including the reassessment order, and allowed the writ petition in favour of the assessee.

The Court held that income-tax returns and taxable income details are personal information and are exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It ruled that a private maintenance dispute does not constitute a larger public interest so as to justify disclosure of such confidential information. The CICs directions were set aside, and the Court observed that the wife could seek financial disclosure through affidavits of assets and liabilities as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha.

The Court held that the searched person is determined by the person named in the warrant and satisfaction note, not by ownership of the premises searched. Proceedings u/s 153C against the respondent as an other person were held valid and lawful. The Court also ruled that a consolidated satisfaction note is valid when the same AO handles both the searched person and the other person cases.

The HC held that the impugned order was a non-speaking and unreasoned order as it failed to consider the petitioners reply and documents. The Court observed that the mere assertion that the reply was unsatisfactory, without assigning reasons, amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice. The demand order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting a personal hearing and passing a reasoned order.

The HC of Bombay held that passing the refund rejection order without granting an effective personal hearing amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirement under Rule 92(3). The Court observed that once the petitioner had specifically sought rescheduling of the hearing for genuine reasons, the authority ought to have granted a fresh opportunity before taking an adverse decision. Accordingly, the Court quashed the SCN and refund rejection order and directed the department to undertake fresh adjudication after issuing a fresh notice, granting a personal hearing, and passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law.

The Madras HC held that for taxpayers with turnover above Rs. 5 crores, GSTR-9C was a mandatory part of annual return filing u/s 44 read with Rule 80(3). The Court ruled that filing GSTR-9 without GSTR-9C amounted to non-filing of the annual return, thereby justifying the levy of a late fee till both forms were filed. The Court further held that the amnesty benefit was unavailable since GSTR-9C was filed after 31.03.2025, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal.

The HC of Punjab & Haryana held that the impugned order lacked cogent reasons and failed to consider the petitioners submissions and CBIC circulars. The Court observed that the authority passed the order mechanically without addressing the distinction between taxable and tax-free supplies, showing complete non-application of mind. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter afresh after granting a fair hearing to the petitioner.

The Delhi HC held that the extended reply period under the corrigenda had to be excluded while computing the limitation u/s 149, making the reassessment notice valid and within time. The Court further held that both the Jurisdictional AO and the Faceless Assessing Officer were competent to issue notices u/s 148A and 148. Since the assessee failed to produce RBI permission and sufficient supporting documents for claiming exemption on NRE deposits and interest income, the Court upheld the reassessment proceedings.

The HC held that the buy-back of its own shares results in the extinguishment of shares and cannot be regarded as the receipt or acquisition of property. Section 56(2)(x) is inapplicable as no property comes into existence in the hands of the company upon buy-back. The addition made by the AO was held to be legally unsustainable, and the Departments appeal was dismissed.

No penalty u/s 270A was leviable as there was no under-reporting of income, since assessed income did not exceed income determined u/s 143(1)(a). A bona fide claim based on prevailing jurisdictional precedent and full disclosure of facts cannot attract a penalty, even if the law is later reversed. The assessee has the option to choose revision u/s 264 instead of appeal, and rejection of such revision without reasons was unsustainable; hence, a penalty was quashed.

The HC observed that the exception under para 3.1(f) is applicable only in situations where the tax effect is not ascertainable or cannot be quantified. In the present case, since the tax effect had already been quantified at Rs. 1.03 crore, the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 2 crore for filing appeals before the HC was applicable. Accordingly, the Court held that the Revenues appeal was not maintainable.

During the pendency of the SLP, the Appellate Authority had already revoked the GST registration, thereby resolving the primary grievance of the assessee. In light of this development, the SC held that the matter had become infructuous and dismissed the SLP accordingly. The Court clarified that the legal issue regarding limitation u/s 107 remains open, and further directed that the HCs judgment shall not be treated as a binding precedent.

The Court held that although writ jurisdiction can be invoked where the appellate forum is unavailable, such a remedy cannot continue once the GSTAT has become functional. It was further held that the petitioner must strictly comply with statutory requirements, including the mandatory pre-deposit u/s 112(8), before filing an appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to file the appeal within the notified timelines, and the GSTAT shall entertain the same if it is in accordance with law; the writ petition was disposed of without examining the merits.

The HC observed that the petitioners appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating upon the merits. Considering the request made, the Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to avail the alternative statutory remedy u/s 112. Accordingly, the Court granted such liberty and disposed of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The HC held that the rectification application was hopelessly time-barred, as the statutory timeline u/s 39(9), even with extension, ended in March 2019. Filing rectification after six years amounted to admission of error by the assessee, making the challenge to the order on merits untenable. The Court confirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, holding that no interference was warranted.

The HC observed that the petitioners appeal had been dismissed solely on the ground of delay, without adjudicating upon the merits. Considering the request made, the Court held that the petitioner should be permitted to avail the alternative statutory remedy u/s 112. Accordingly, the Court granted such liberty and disposed of the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Court held that the writ petitions were premature, as adjudication proceedings had already been initiated. It directed the petitioner to participate in statutory adjudication and avail alternate remedies, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. Since the petitioner failed to furnish documents for release, no relief was granted, and the writ petitions were dismissed.