AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The Madras High Court ruled that legal heirs of a deceased taxpayer can be held liable for tax dues under Sections 73, 74, and 74A. The court emphasized that tax liability can be determined posthumously, encompassing the entire adjudicatory process.
The Karnataka High Court affirmed the mandatory seven-day compliance period for income tax notices under Section 148A(b), ruling that shorter timeframes are inherently illegal.
The Bombay High Court has declared a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to delays in passing an order giving effect to the assessment, thus abating the tax demand.
The CESTAT ruled that ownership of seized gold is established through GST documents, disallowing confiscation. Burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act was deemed fulfilled by the importer, making confiscation unsustainable.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that mechanical attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the GST Act without prior formation of opinion by the authorities is unsustainable. The court ordered the de-freezing of the affected bank account.
The Supreme Court has set aside High Court orders that quashed JAO-issued reassessment notices, permitting taxpayers to challenge the retrospective Section 147A amendment in a forthcoming hearing.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has granted interim bail to employees in a ₹100 crore GST fraud case, allowing them to approach the Chennai court. The court emphasized ensuring appropriate terms to mitigate flight risks.
The Telangana High Court permitted a fresh manual application for revocation of a cancelled GST registration, overriding a previous rejection due to non-response to a show cause notice.
The Bombay High Court ruled that the 2019 amendment to Section 54(1) of the GST Act applies prospectively, ensuring that refund claims related to pre-existing periods are still valid. The court directed that these refund applications must be processed accordingly.
The High Court has set aside the cancellation of GST registration, determining that the lack of specific factual reasons in the show cause notice left the taxpayer without a fair opportunity to respond.
The ITAT quashed an assessment due to a Section 143(2) notice issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, highlighting the need for valid transfer orders.
The ITAT invalidated a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹85 crore due to a lack of digital signature on the order. This ruling emphasizes the necessity of proper authentication in tax orders.
The Karnataka High Court has determined that the provision of standard banking facilities by banks does not constitute a 'declared service' under section 66E(e) of the Finance Act.