The Court permitted the petitioner to file a belated appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, subject to Rs. 15,000 payment, directing the appellate authority to hear it on merits.
The Tribunal held that reassessing value a second time without fresh evidence was unsustainable and set aside the duty, interest, and penalty demand.
The Tribunal held that the right to apply accrued in 2016 based on the last Operational Creditor invoice, making the Section 9 application time-barred. It found the lower authority erred in treating a later invoice as extending limitation.
The Court held that once the assessee files a valid return, the assessment under Section 62 is automatically withdrawn. Even if the return is submitted late, the statutory consequence under Section 62(2) applies. The ruling confirms that the department may still verify liability and issue a fresh notice if short-payment exists.
The Court held that prolonged custody and the documentary nature of the evidence justified bail. The decision highlights that delayed trials in CGST matters should not lead to continued detention.
The High Court held that goods accompanied by a valid e-way bill cannot be seized for non-declaration of destination as an additional place of business. The orders under Section 129 were quashed.
The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that the AO had examined salary and business promotion expenses, making Section 263 revision invalid. It held that when two views are possible, revisional interference is unwarranted.
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid since notices and the final order were issued in the name of a dead assessee despite the Department being informed. Key takeaway: assessments against deceased persons are void ab initio.
The Court held that goods moved as stock transfer could not be treated as sale and that technical mistakes in the e-way bill did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside, and the order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
