The dispute concerned reversal of ITC based solely on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The High Court held that failure to consider the CBIC Circular prescribing the procedure vitiated the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
The dispute concerned rejection of a request to amend a Bill of Entry due to an incorrect invoice number. The court directed fresh consideration after submission of contemporaneous documents, without ruling on merits.
The issue was whether a bank’s empanelled advocate could face criminal trial for an allegedly flawed legal scrutiny report. The High Court held that in the absence of evidence of conspiracy or wrongful gain, prosecution could not continue.
The issue was whether a government-approved valuer could be penalised when Customs did not rely on his valuation. The Tribunal held that penalties are unsustainable without proof of reliance, intent, or collusion.
The issue was whether penalties could be sustained without proper cross-examination of witnesses. The court held that ignoring Section 138B requirements vitiates the adjudication.
The issue was whether a single GST show cause notice could cover several assessment years. The court granted interim protection, staying coercive action pending detailed examination.
The amendment requires every resolution plan to disclose ultimate beneficial owners and ownership structures. The key takeaway is enhanced transparency in insolvency resolution proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that once an arbitral award attains finality, the award amount must be paid in full without deduction of tax at source.
The Supreme Court held that a chit subscriber incurs a present debt payable in installments, allowing recovery of future subscriptions upon default.
The issue was whether advance money from a failed land deal could be taxed as income. The Tribunal held that without clear forfeiture, section 56(2)(ix) does not apply. Key takeaway: forfeiture is mandatory to tax advances.
