Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
A High Court decision on tax litigation reiterated that condonation of delay depends only on sufficient cause, and prolonged administrative inaction, unexplained gaps and file movement without justification do not warrant indulgence; the State is held to the same diligence standard as any litigant. It also reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used for rehearing unless there is an apparent error or comparable ground. On the tax issue, the Court applied strict construction of the notification and held that denatured spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol; because the 30.03.2002 notification covered only rectified spirit, neutral spirit and ethyl alcohol, it did not impose entry tax on denatured spirit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.