The appellate authority rejected the customs appeal solely on limitation, holding it was filed far beyond the maximum period permitted under law. The ruling underscores that statutory timelines are absolute and merits cannot be examined once delay exceeds the condonable limit.
The Court held that reassessment is not barred by change of opinion where the original issue was dropped due to absence of evidence. Subsequent reopening based on new material was found legally sustainable.
The Tribunal ruled that rental receipts could not be shifted to income from other sources without any change in facts. Long-standing acceptance of house property treatment required the Department to follow consistency.
The Tribunal held that an AI-based smart robot could not be classified as an electronic toy when it satisfied the requirements of an automatic data processing unit. Re-classification by customs authorities was set aside for lack of technical justification.
The High Court ruled that the Tribunal cannot refuse to consider a stay application merely because no tax demand exists. It held that the power to grant stay flows from appellate jurisdiction and must be exercised where necessary to protect the appeal from becoming ineffective.
CESTAT held that handheld barcode scanners with limited mobile features are not classifiable as smartphones. The ruling restores classification as scanners under CTH 8471 and grants exemption from Basic Customs Duty.
The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) could not be applied once the assessee qualified as a company in which the public are substantially interested. The ruling clarifies that the charging provision itself fails where statutory exclusion applies.
The High Court held that proceedings under Section 153C cannot stand where the satisfaction note lacks a date and is communicated after an unexplained two-year delay. Strict compliance with statutory requirements was reaffirmed.
The Delhi High Court declined to rule on the validity of GST limitation-extension notifications as the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The taxpayer was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with protection against limitation.
The Court dealt with a challenge to a confiscation show cause notice where jurisdictional confusion delayed proceedings. It directed a time-bound reply, personal hearing, and adjudication while leaving merits open.
