The Court found a prima facie case that reassessment was initiated without considering detailed explanations already on record. Interim protection was granted pending further hearing.
CESTAT Chennai held that interactive flat panel is classified under CTH 8471 and their parts under CTH 8473 since revenue has not succeeded in discharging its burden. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and order is set aside.
Patna High Court held that Executive Officer acting as a quasi judicial authority would fall within the ambit of the term Judge under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 hence shielded and accordingly, no civil or criminal proceedings can be initiated.
Authorities erred in treating direct consultancy services as intermediary supplies. The ruling confirms refunds where the supplier provides the main service on its own account.
llegations of forged invoices and wrongful ITC claims did not justify custodial interrogation. The court extended anticipatory bail with strict conditions.
The court held that GST laws form a complete code for tax evasion offences. Parallel prosecution under the IPC was quashed to prevent double jeopardy.
The High Court quashed a Section 122 show cause notice due to jurisdictional issues. The ruling allows the department to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law.
The court flagged a conflict between circular instructions and ground-level officer availability. Final orders cannot be enforced without court approval.
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner had valid jurisdiction under Section 74 due to lawful sub-delegation by the Commissioner. The key takeaway is that administrative orders can validly assign GST adjudicatory functions.
Reassessment was struck down as no satisfaction note by the searched person’s AO was shown. The ruling reiterates that limitation cannot be bypassed through procedural shortcuts.
