The High Court held that assessment could not stand where the taxpayer was unable to reply due to non-supply of documents. The matter was remitted for fresh assessment after document supply.
CESTAT held that sending imported goods to a job worker does not violate the non-transfer condition of the Target Plus Scheme. Ownership remaining with the importer was found decisive.
The High Court found prima facie vagueness in a GST show-cause notice that failed to specify missing documents and questioned whether Section 74 jurisdiction was validly invoked. Coercive recovery based on the adjudication order was stayed pending further hearing.
The High Court held that customs authorities lawfully extended the time under Section 110(2) before expiry, making the later show-cause notice valid and negating the claim for return of seized gold and cash.
The ITAT held that land-levelling and fencing expenses are integral to acquiring agricultural land and qualify for section 54B deduction. The ruling clarifies what constitutes eligible investment despite restricting unregistered costs.
The issue was whether penalty for misreporting could be levied when income was disclosed but offered under an incorrect head. The Tribunal held that such a classification dispute does not amount to misreporting and deleted the penalty.
The court held that a shipping bill could be amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act to correct an inadvertent drawback entry, enabling release of IGST refund on zero-rated exports.
The High Court held that once belated ITC stands retrospectively regularised by statute, recovery of interest on the same basis cannot continue. The garnishee proceedings were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.
The issue concerned cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns and rejection of appeal as time-barred. The High Court restored the registration after noting that all returns were filed and dues paid.
The High Court declined to interfere with GST registration cancellation where the statutory appeal was filed fifteen months late. The ruling reiterates that limitation bars relief when delays are unexplained in pleadings.
