The appellate tribunal held that the magistrate had lawfully exercised powers under Section 14 after considering the statutory affidavit. The DRT’s restraint on recovery action was found to be contrary to law and was set aside.
The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of multiple comparables after finding them functionally different from a low-risk investment advisory service provider. It held that such findings were factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.
The court held that an appeal filed beyond the maximum condonable period under GST law cannot be entertained, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override statutory timelines.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank violated Rule 8(5) by conducting the auction nearly ten months after valuation without obtaining a fresh report. The sale and subsequent actions were set aside on this ground.
The court refused to grant a mandatory stay on income tax demand where the taxpayer had earlier proposed paying dues in instalments. The ruling underscores that voluntary payment proposals can weaken claims for interim protection.
The tribunal held that objections to the maintainability of a bank’s Original Application claiming over Rs. 50 crores were rejected, affirming DRT jurisdiction over debts arising from fraudulent withdrawals.
The appellate tribunal upheld cancellation of the auction after finding that possession and sale notices were not properly served. It ruled that recovery actions without statutory compliance cannot be sustained.
The Court held that customs officials acting in their official capacity cannot be cross-examined as a matter of right. Cross-examination is permissible only where specific prejudice is shown.
The Tribunal held that where identical facts existed in earlier years, the addition for alleged bogus purchases must follow past precedent. It restricted the addition to 5 percent, applying the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal upheld reopening and reassessment but reduced the estimated commission income from 2% to 1% due to absence of comparative or segmental justification.
