Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
