The Court refused to remand a detailed GST order and required a full pre-deposit to pursue an appeal. It held that prior participation opportunities were not used by the petitioner. Any recovered amount must be adjusted toward the pre-deposit.
The High Court held that while Section 128A(4A) directs Customs appeals to be decided within six months, this is a directory provision. Appeals should be disposed of as soon as possible to avoid undue delay.
Tribunal found that misclassification between copolymer and Homopolymer PVC was not addressed, directing the original authority to reassess ADD and penalty claims.
The court addressed a GST recovery notice where the petitioner claimed no liability as invoices were unpaid. The case was remitted for fresh consideration with evidence submission.
ITAT set aside CIT(E) orders denying 12AB registration, holding that section 13(1)(b) cannot be invoked at registration stage; charitable intent and activities must be examined independently.
The Court set aside the GST demand after finding that the final order sought an amount higher than what was specified in the show-cause notice. The case was remanded for fresh proceedings with an opportunity to respond.
The Court struck down a GST demand by holding that assignment of long-term leasehold rights amounts to transfer of immovable property, not a taxable supply. The ruling reaffirms that such assignments fall outside Section 7 of the GST Act.
The Gujarat High Court quashed a Section 153C notice due to a 22-month delay in recording the satisfaction note, ruling it violated Supreme Court guidelines for immediate post-assessment action.
The ITAT held that rejection of Section 80G registration without specific reasons is unsustainable and directed a fresh, reasoned consideration by the CIT(E).
The Court held that the assessee failed to prove ₹20.06 crore in purchases and restored the AO’s 100% addition. It ruled that partial estimation was unjustified and Section 69C required full disallowance.
