The court held that an appeal refiled within the CBIC amnesty period could not be dismissed on limitation. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.
The court held that Section 74 of the CGST Act does not permit consolidated show cause notices for multiple financial years. Notices clubbing different tax periods were therefore set aside.
The court held that a refund claim cannot be denied solely due to technical issues on the GST portal when substantive conditions are met. Authorities were directed to process the refund on merits.
The case involved a Section 263 revision alleging failure to make additions after reopening. The Tribunal ruled that once the AO conducts enquiry and takes a conscious decision, revision is impermissible.
The appeal was dismissed as the assessee had already offered the disputed income to tax at 30%. The ruling clarifies that reassessment cannot survive when there is no loss of revenue or escaped income.
The High Court held that statutory authorities must mandatorily refer exemption claims under the Building Tax Act to the Government. Orders denying exemption without such reference were set aside.
The courts held that interest and penalties on IGST imports cannot be imposed without explicit legal provision. Amendments granting such power apply only prospectively.
The case examined rejection of registration due to filing Form 10A instead of Form 10AB. The Tribunal held that clerical or procedural mistakes cannot defeat substantive entitlement of old trusts.
The Court set aside confiscation and penalty because the authority failed to consider the importer’s claim of duty exemption under Special Advance Authorization. The key takeaway is that orders ignoring core submissions cannot stand.
The Tribunal held that a refund claim filed within time cannot be rejected for procedural deficiencies cured later, and directed sanction of refund after considering revised documents.
