The Court held that with investigation complete and evidence being documentary, continued custody was unnecessary. Bail was granted as the offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum sentence of five years.
The Court held that penalty under Section 48(5) cannot be imposed based solely on suspicion without proof that the transaction was omitted from books. The order was set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade tax.
The Court held that insolvency law cannot be used to sidestep a maintenance order. It ruled that the petitioner’s plea lacked legal foundation and refused to declare him insolvent.
The Court quashed the ex-parte GST order after finding that no reply or hearing was granted. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, with fresh adjudication subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on related notifications.
ITAT held that reopening of assessment based solely on investigation inputs without independent verification is invalid. The reassessment and 1% commission addition were deleted, reinforcing the requirement for AO’s own application of mind.
The Court held that earlier orders ignored relevant High Court decisions interpreting Rule 90(3). The refund claim must now be reconsidered afresh within a fixed timeline.
The ITAT ruled that Section 194H does not apply to margins or discounts given to telecom distributors for prepaid products. Distributors operate on a principal-to-principal basis, so TDS cannot be imposed on amounts not paid or credited by the assessee.
The ITAT held that blank letterheads found during a search are dumb documents and cannot constitute incriminating material. Since no corroborative evidence existed, all 153A additions and penalties were invalidated, reaffirming that suspicion alone cannot sustain assessments.
The Court held that objections raised by Customs lacked merit, noting similar goods were earlier cleared without issue. The review was dismissed and costs were imposed for unjustified action.
The High Court held that the Commissioner did not properly apply the wide discretionary powers under section 264. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the petitioner’s circumstances and submitted records.
