The Court determined that the authority reserved judgment on the hearing date and delivered it later without notifying the petitioner. It held that such a procedure is unsupported by the GST Act. The case was remanded for a fresh, lawful decision.
The Court found the appellate order to be unreasoned and based on non-application of mind. It set aside the decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The High Court directed the lower court to decide the pending Section 14 SARFAESI application within two months. The ruling emphasizes timely adjudication without touching the merits.
The Court allowed the Liquidator to conduct a new sale incorporating prior judicial conditions on title verification and occupation. The auction will proceed with the revised upset price and mandatory disclosures.
The Court closed the tax appeal after noting that the Department’s revised 2024 circular increased the High Court filing limit to ₹2 crore, while the case involved a lower tax effect.
Since petitioner’s requests for time were ignored and no hearing was granted, Court held the order unsustainable. matter was remanded with instructions to allow additional replies and reconsider all issues.
The judgment highlights that GST penalties require proof of intent to evade tax; mere technical lapses, such as e-way bill expiry due to traffic restrictions, are insufficient.
The Court found that the dispute pertained solely to mandatory interest on delayed tax payment, leaving no scope for challenge. It dismissed the petition while allowing the taxpayer to request instalment payment.
IFSCA allows IFSC Insurance Offices to raise invoices in any contract currency, but fund realization must be in specified foreign currencies, ensuring compliance and smoother transactions.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
