The issue was whether sale proceeds of inherited jewellery could be taxed as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that valuation reports, affidavits, and banking records sufficiently explained the source, leading to deletion of the Section 68 addition.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal on limitation grounds. The Court allowed restoration of the appeal on merits, subject to payment of costs, considering the petitioner’s age and reliance on a consultant.
The issue involved denial of ITC due to supplier’s non-payment of tax. The Court set aside the demand and ordered fresh adjudication once tax compliance was completed.
The Court held that allegations were based on documents already seized, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Anticipatory bail was granted considering the nature of evidence and limited statutory punishment.
The Court held that imports with bills of lading dated on or before 31 March 2023 were entitled to TRQ exemption despite later clearance. Refund of duty paid during the policy gap was directed.
The Court held that claims exceeding ₹1 crore under the Scheme cannot be rejected outright. Such claims must be examined with enhanced verification as expressly provided in the policy.
The case examined the effect of prolonged departmental inaction after a Tribunal remand. The Court ruled that since the statutory time limit had long lapsed, nothing survived for adjudication.
The Court held that a private commercial bank is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The key takeaway is that disputes with private banks must be pursued before appropriate alternative forums.
The Court ruled that time spent pursuing a rectification application filed within time must be excluded while computing limitation for a GST appeal. The key takeaway is that bona fide rectification proceedings protect appellate rights.
The issue was whether Central GST could continue proceedings when State GST had already initiated action on the same issue. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing authorities to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines to avoid parallel adjudication.
