The Court quashed penalty orders where all documents were produced and goods matched invoices. The key takeaway is that procedural lapses alone do not justify penal action.
Bombay High Court held that in terms of section 5(1) read with Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] Provisional Attachment Order ceases to have any effect after 180 days.
The Court held that cancellation arising from a part-time accountant’s lapse warranted relief. Registration was revived with strict conditions on compliance and ITC utilization.
The High Court set aside GST recovery and appellate orders after finding that no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the taxpayer.
The SC upheld the ITAT’s ruling that fresh assessments were barred by limitation since the Assessing Officer acted beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(2A).
The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that reassessment was justified as the original order contained no reference to the deduction claim. Mere filing of computation does not bar reopening.
The Court set aside reassessment proceedings after finding that the assessing officer failed to verify whether cash deposits were used to create a fixed deposit. The case was remanded for fresh consideration after proper examination.
The High Court held that Section 16(5) of the CGST Act overrides the limitation under Section 16(4) if returns are filed before the specified cut-off date. The assessment denying ITC was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.
The High Court set aside an order rejecting release of seized jewellery after finding it was passed by an officer who lacked jurisdiction. The application was directed to be reconsidered by the proper assessing authority.
The issue was whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss recorded at year-end was notional and disallowable. The Tribunal upheld its allowability, holding that losses accounted under consistent mercantile practice and accounting standards are deductible.
