AI-curated court updates, legal developments, and practice-area insights for Indian legal professionals.
The ITAT ruled that a revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be upheld if the Assessing Officer has acted following a binding High Court judgment, dismissing the revision initiated on a subordinate authority's proposal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled that statements and materials acquired during a third-party search cannot be used against an assessee without ensuring compliance with natural justice principles, particularly the right to cross-examine the third party.
The Calcutta High Court has directed that an appeal be filed against the rejection of a vehicle tax refund, emphasizing the need to follow statutory remedies.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed GST penalty orders, stating that the same officer who investigated the case cannot adjudicate it, mandating a fresh adjudication process.
The Patna High Court invalidated an ex parte GST assessment for lack of a personal hearing, emphasizing the importance of compliance with Section 75(4) of the GST Act.
The Patna High Court set aside a GST assessment order, ruling that simply uploading notices on the GST portal does not constitute adequate notice under the law.
The Patna High Court restored a GST registration that was cancelled due to a non-compliant order lacking proper notice and hearing for the petitioner. The decision reaffirms the principles of natural justice.
The Orissa High Court permitted a truck owner to deposit outstanding tax arrears and allowed for the consideration of penalty waiver under the Odisha MV Tax Act.
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has automated courier import refunds, with manual filings accepted only until September 30, 2026.
The Delhi High Court upheld a tax addition of Rs. 19.25 lakh, concluding that a civil suit to cancel a sale deed was filed as an afterthought, following a tax appeal ruling.
The legal validity of imposing retrospective penalties under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act is being examined as taxpayers face enforcement actions for periods preceding the provision's introduction. This scrutiny may impact future GST compliance and enforcement.
The Kerala High Court modified an order stating that the onus to prove negligence in the non-recovery of tax dues lies on the director, and not the Principal Secretary.
The CESTAT ruled that running account bills, when accompanied by payment orders, are valid documents for claiming CENVAT credit.