The Court dismissed the petition seeking release of seized gold, noting that the 2018 confiscation order was never challenged. The ruling held that no interference was warranted at this stage.
The Court held that GST registration cannot be restored solely to claim ITC under Section 16(6) when the taxpayer voluntarily cancelled registration. The ruling confirms that Section 16(6) applies only where cancellation has been lawfully revoked.
The Tribunal held that amounts paid directly to a confirming party did not accrue to the seller and could not be treated as capital gains. The Section 263 revision was invalidated because the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue.
The Court set aside a suspension issued for not acting against a bogus GST firm, noting the officer was on sanctioned leave and later transferred. The ruling permits inquiry proceedings to continue but removes the suspension.
Court condoned a 27-day delay in filing an appeal and held that pre-deposit must be computed only on disputed tax. The matter was remanded for fresh calculation and reconsideration.
Gujarat High Court held that interest under section 50 of the GST Act cannot be levied from the date of deposit of the amount in electronic cash ledger till the time the return in Form GSTR3B is submitted. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The Tribunal remanded the matter after noting that both assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte. The case was returned to the AO with directions to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect carry-forward loss claim arose from an inadvertent mistake and was not deliberate. The penalty was deleted after noting absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
CESTAT Delhi held that import of parts of e-rikshaw cannot be presumed to be import of an e-rikshaw in complete knocked-down/semi knocked-down [CKD/SKD] condition as three essential components were not imported. Accordingly, demand set aside.
The Tribunal held that reopening was invalid as the sanctioning authority recorded only a one-word approval. Key takeaway: Mechanical approval without reasoning vitiates jurisdiction under Section 147.
