HEMANT T JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 412/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 July 2026AY 2014-1514 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147 for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a fresh notice under Section 148 on July 27, 2022, after the extended time limit provided by TOLA and subsequent Supreme Court directions. The assessee contended that this notice was time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reassessment proceedings was issued within the permissible time limit as per the Supreme Court's directions, and if not, whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, सूरत न्यायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 (AY: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Hemant T Jain (HUF), बनाम/ The ITO, 319-A, Panchratna Ward-2(3)(6), Vs. Building, Opera house, Surat Mumbai (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAEHH1465E Assessee by Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM: The captioned two (2) appeals are filed by same assessee; the counsels representing in these matters are same and the issues are also identical, hence they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

ITA 411/SRT/2025 – AY 2013-14:

2.

This appeal is directed against the order of first-appeal dated 26.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order

Page 1 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 dated 29.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14.

3.

The background facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(i) The assessee-individual filed his return of income of AY 2013-14 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,25,250/- u/s 139 which was duly assessed through an assessment-order dated 23.12.2016 u/s 143(3) at a total income of Rs. 26,52,26,580/-.

(ii) Subsequently, on the basis of information in his possession revealing assessee’s involvement in fictitious transactions, the AO issued initial notice dated 24.06.2021 u/s 148 to re-open assessee’s case u/s 147 on the strength of the time-limit extended by The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [“TOLA”]. Since a new set of provisions for re-assessment u/s 147 was introduced in Income-tax Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021, there arose controversies with regard to the issuance of notices u/s 148 after 01.04.2021 and the litigation travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543) dated 04.05.2022 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave certain directions. Accordingly, after considering the decision of Ashish Agarwal, the Ld. AO issued a fresh notice dated 27.07.2022 u/s 148 to assessee for making assessment u/s 147 [after completing the procedure of section

Page 2 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 148A(d)], which culminated into passing of an order of re-assessment dated 29.05.2023. By this order of re-assessment, the Ld. AO re- assessed assessee’s total income at Rs. 27,94,42,769/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,42,16,189/-.

(iii) Aggrieved by aforesaid order of re-assessment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal whereupon the Ld. CIT(A) remanded case back to the file of AO for a fresh assessment.

(iv) Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

4.

The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:

Sl Grounds of Appeal Tax effect relating to each No. ground of appeal (see note below)

1 Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 0 and law, the L.d. CTT(A) failed to considered that notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued without mentioning the DIN Number on notice itself which is violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019

2 Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 0 and law, the Ld. CTT(A) failed to considered that assessment order passed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and require to be quash

3 Ground 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 0 and in law the Ld. CTT(A) failed to considered that assessment order passed without providing an opportunity of cross examination to appellant which is against the principles of natural justice

Page 3 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15

4 Ground 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 48,33,838 and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that addition made by Ld. AO being 100% of genuine purchases of Rs. 1,14,16,189/- as suspicious purchase on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and required to be deleted instead of set-aside.

5 Ground 7. Appellant craves leave to add further Rs. 0 grounds or to 5 amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing

6 Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 0 and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 which is bad in law and required to be quashed.

7 Ground 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case Rs. 0 and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that reassessment 7 proceedings under section 148 is in violation of provisions of section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 is time barred

Total Tax Effect Rs. 48,33,838

5.

By means of Ground No. 1, the assessee is challenging the legality of re-assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 147. The assessee is claiming that the notice issued by AO u/s 148 to frame assessment u/s 147 was time-barred.

6.

Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the Ld. AO issued initial notice u/s 148 on 24.06.2021, which was within the extended time limit as per TOLA. That, as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra),

Page 4 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 all notices issued u/s 148 during the period from 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021, were saved and deemed to be the notices in terms of section 148A(b) i.e. under the new/substituted regime of re-assessment u/s 147 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 through Finance Act, 2021. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, also issued direction that the assessing officer shall supply the information/ material available with Revenue for framing assessment u/s 147 to assessee within 30 days from date of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court (i.e. from 04.05.2022) and grant two weeks’ time to assessee to file reply. Only thereafter, the assessing officer shall pass order u/s 148A(d) and after completing such procedure of section 148A, may issue a fresh notice u/s 148. It was further held that all defences which may be available to the assesses including those available u/s 149 and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.

7.

Subsequently, in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) dated 03.10.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the order u/s 148A(d) was required to be passed as well as the new notice u/s 148 was required to be issued within the “surviving time” available as per outer time-limit available under Income-Tax Act, 1961 read with TOLA (i.e. available upto 30.06.2021). Ld. AR explained that since the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 24.06.2021, the Ld. AO had only 7 days “surviving time” available upto 30.06.2021. Therefore, new notice u/s 148 of the Act was required to be issued within the survival period of 7 days

Page 5 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 from the last date on which the assessee was required to file reply to the notice u/s 148A(b) issued by AO. Since in present case, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) to assessee on 27.05.2022, the assessee was having two weeks’ time to file reply uptill 13.06.2022. Thereafter, the Ld. AO was having time period to issue notice u/s 148 uptill 20.06.2022 [13.06.2022 + 7 days]. That means, the AO could new/subsequent notice u/s 148 by 20.06.2022 only. However, the Ld. AO has issued new/subsequent notice u/s 148 dated 27.07.2022 which is barred by limitation and hence invalid. Consequently, the assessment-order passed by Ld. AO is also invalid.

8.

With these submissions, Ld. AR requested to quash the assessment framed by AO u/s 147.

9.

Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue supported the action of Ld. AO and requested to uphold the AO’s order. Alternatively, he submitted that these matters may be remanded to Ld. AO for examination/verification of assessee’s claim.

10.

In rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that the chart showing chronology of events, taking into account the notices issued by AO as well as the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), stands contained in the order of Ld. CIT(A) at Page No. 21. Hence, there is no purpose in remanding this matter to AO. He requested the bench to decide this matter and quash the assessment-order passed by AO.

Page 6 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides and perused the documents held in case file including the orders of lower authorities.

12.

For reference, we re-produce the Chart giving chronology of events as contained in the order of Ld. CIT(A) at Page No. 21:

13.

We find that the identical controversy involving similar facts has already been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Surat in ITA 479 & 480/SRT/2025, Kanchan Devi Agarwal Vs. ITO, order dated 23.12.2025 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has accepted assessee’s claim. We re-produce below the relevant portion of order of ITAT for an immediate reference:

“10. The contention of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer was required to pass order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and also issue notice under Section 148 of the Act within the surviving period of three days (which was extended to seven days) of filing its reply on 06.06.2022. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time limit till 14.06.2022 only to take these actions. However, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.07.2022 i.e. beyond the period of seven days from its reply on 06.06.2022 and thus the notice was barred by limitation. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), had directed that all the notices u/s 148 of the Act issued under the old provision shall be treated

Page 7 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 as show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act of the new provisions. Further, the Hon’ble Court had directed the assessing officers to supply the assesses with the relevant material and information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days from the date of the judgment. The effect of this direction was summarized by the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) as under: 106. …..To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were stayed till the date of supply of the relevant information and material by the assessing officer to the assessee. After the supply of the relevant material and information to the assessee, time begins to run for the assesses to respond to the show cause notices. [Emphasis supplied.] 12. The Hon’ble Court had held that only the time surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of such deemed notice, including issuance of notice u/s 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit was required to be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30th June, 2021. The reasoning and the relevant part of the judgement of the Court is as under: 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the preceding segments of this judgment, the period from the date of the issuance of the deemed notices till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) has to be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation. Moreover, the period of two weeks granted to the assesses to reply to the show cause notices must also be excluded in terms of the third proviso to Section 149. 111. The clock started ticking for the Revenue only after it received the response of the assesses to the show causes notices. After the receipt of the reply, the assessing officer had to perform the following responsibilities: (i) consider the reply of the assessee under Section 149A(c); (ii) take a decision under Section 149A(d) based on the available material and the reply of the assessee; and (iii) issue a notice under Section 148 if it was a fit case for reassessment. Once the clock started ticking, the assessing officer was required to complete these procedures within the surviving time limit. The surviving time limit, as prescribed under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA,

Page 8 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 was available to the assessing officers to issue the reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. 112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022. 113. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court allowed the assesses to avail all the defences, including the defence of expiry of the time limit specified under Section 149(1). In the instant appeals, the reassessment notices pertain to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017- 2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under Section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be time- barred. [Emphasis supplied.] 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had thus categorically held that the assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA and that all notices issued beyond the surviving period were time barred and liable to be set aside. This time line was also demonstrated in para 112 of the order with an illustration. In the present case, the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.06.2021 which was treated as deemed notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Since this notice was issued on 28.06.2021, the surviving time period available to the Assessing Officer to complete the further proceedings, including the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act, was three days only, which was extended to seven days. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was required to pass the order a u/s 148A(d) of the Act and also to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in this case within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of reply of the assessee. As the assessee had filed its reply on 06.06.2022, the time limit available to the Assessing Officer to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Act

Page 9 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 was till 08.07.2022 only. As the notice in the present case was issued on 25.07.2022, the same is found to be beyond the limitation period. 14. Identical issue was decided by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella [2025] 177 taxmann.com 194 (Gujarat). The findings given by the Hon’ble Court on this issue are reproduced below: 65. The alternative contention of the petitioner as to whether notices would be valid notice or invalid notice considering 'surviving time' between the date of the issuance of notices under TOLA and 30th June, 2021 or not is required to be considered and for that each matter has to be considered separately on the basis of the facts of case considering the date of issuance of notices under section 148 under TOLA by the Revenue and thereafter date of supplying information to the assessee and date of passing of order under section 148A(d) and date of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act so as to consider whether issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is within 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) or not. 66. So far as Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are concerned, the period of three years from the end of the assessment year would be over prior to 20.03.2020 and the period of six years would be over between 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. Therefore, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per TOLA, will be a valid notice if the notice under section 148 of the Act under new regime is issued within the period of 'surviving time' as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). For the Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 are concerned, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 under TOLA would be considered to be issued within three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as three years would complete within the period of 20.03.2020 and 30.06.2021. 67. Therefore, in facts of these petitions, following data is required to be considered to find out 'surviving time' to decide as to whether the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act issued under the new regime as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) would be valid notice or not in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra):

SCA NO AY Date of notice No of days of Date of under section surviving time providing 148 under available information TOLA 30.06.2021 under section

Page 10 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 148A(b)

6387/2023 2013-2014 17.06.2021 13 26.05.2022 5688/2023 2014-2015 09.06.2021 21 23.05.2022

22260/2022 2016-2017 30.06.2021 I 23.05.2022

2017-2018 2017-2018 996/2023 I 24.05.2022

Due date of Due date of SCA NO Date of order Last date for filing reply reply:- under section issuance of 148A(d) and notice under notice under section 148 as section 148:- per surviving time:-

09.06.2022 04.06.2022 6387/2023 29.07.2022 22.06.2022

06.06.2022 - 5688/2023 27.07.2022 27.06.2022

07.06.2022 06.07.2022 22260/2022 30.07.2022 14.06.2022

11.06.2022 10.06.2022 996/2023 19.07.2022 18.06.2022

68.

It is apparent from the above details that impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is issued beyond the period of 'surviving time' as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra)and therefore, such notices would be invalid notices. 69. The impugned notices issued under section 148 of the Act are accordingly quashed and set aside being invalid having been issued beyond the 'surviving time'. Accordingly, impugned orders passed under section 148A(d) of the Act would also not survive and are accordingly, quashed and set aside. Subsequent proceedings, if any, undertaken by the respondent would not survive and are also quashed and set aside. The Hon’ble Court held that since the notices under section 148 were issued beyond period of 'surviving time' as per direction of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra), such notices were invalid.

Page 11 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 15. In view of the facts discussed above and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the jurisdictional High Court, the impugned notice dated 25.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is held to be invalid as the same was issued beyond the surviving period as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). Accordingly, the proceeding initiated u/s 148 of the Act is quashed being time-barred. As a consequence, the impugned assessment order dated 25.04.2023 does not survive and the same is quashed and set aside. The legal ground taken by the assessee is allowed. 16. Since the legal ground taken by the assessee has been allowed, and the assessment order has been consequently quashed and set aside, other grounds on merits taken by the assessee has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 14. The analysis given and view taken by Co-ordinate Bench is very much applicable to present matter before us. The Revenue is not able to distinguish the same by placing any material. Respectfully following the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench and in the light of pre-existing decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujrat referred therein, we are inclined to hold that the impugned notice dated 27.07.2022 issued by Ld. AO u/s 148 is time-barred and therefore invalid. Consequently, the impugned assessment-order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 does not survive and the same is hereby quashed. The legal ground raised by assessee is thus allowed.

15.

As we have quashed the order of assessment itself, there is no necessity of adjudicating other ground dealing with the merit of the addition made by AO; the same is kept open undecided.

16.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed.

ITA 412/SRT/2025 – AY 2014-15:

Page 12 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 17. This appeal is directed against the order of first-appeal dated 26.02.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act,

18.

The underlying facts and controversy in this matter are similar to A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, suffice it to re-produce the Chart giving chronology contained in order of Ld. CIT(A) at Page 17:

19.

Thus, in this year also, the notice u/s 148 is time-barred. Hence, the adjudication made by us in ITA 411/SRT/2025 of AY 2013-14 will apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the impugned assessment-order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147 is hereby quashed. The legal ground raised by assessee is allowed.

20.

As we have quashed the order of assessment itself, there is no necessity of adjudicating other ground dealing with the merit of the addition made by AO; the same is kept open undecided.

21.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed.

Page 13 of 14

Hemant T. Jain (HUF) ITA Nos. 411 & 412/SRT/2025 - AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 22. Resultantly, both of these appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 09/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat दिन ांक / Dated : 09/07/2026 *a.k., Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order

UE COPYAssistant Registrar/Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Surat Bench, Surat

Page 14 of 14

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →