The High Court held that marginal delay in filing a GST appeal was sufficiently explained by illness and financial hardship. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
The High Court addressed the issue of a statutory GST appeal being impossible due to a non-functional tribunal. It held that the appeal may be filed once the Tribunal President takes charge, with statutory protection continuing meanwhile.
The Court examined whether diesel used through service providers could escape VAT liability. It held that in the absence of proof of purchases from registered dealers, VAT was rightly levied.
The Court held that failure to pass a speaking order after remand violates statutory obligations and frustrates appellate remedies, directing authorities to decide the matter within a fixed timeline.
Gujarat High Court held that disallowance of claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied in such case. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and questions of law answered in favour of assessee.
NCLAT Chennai held that appeal as prescribed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of dismissal of contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, company appeals are dismissed.
The dispute involved non-implementation of an accepted adjudication order for release of personal jewellery. The Court held that Customs was bound to act on its own order and directed unconditional release.
The court refused to revive a customs appeal dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit, holding that repeated attempts after long delays cannot be entertained once higher courts have rejected identical pleas.
The dispute concerned how aggregate average advances should be computed for bad debt provisions. The Court held that cumulative month-end outstanding advances, not incremental lending, must be used.
The Court declined to rule on the validity of time-extension notifications pending Supreme Court scrutiny and directed the taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal. The key takeaway is that adjudication orders passed after replies can be tested in appeal, with limitation protection granted.
