The Court held that authorities cannot initiate confiscation under Section 130 without completing detention proceedings under Section 129. It ruled that bypassing statutory procedure renders the action invalid.
The Tribunal upheld denial of loss set-off as the statutory eight-year limit for carrying forward capital losses had expired. It ruled that pending litigation does not extend the permissible period under the law.
The Court held that a miscellaneous application cannot be used to reopen a dismissed SLP unless it falls within limited exceptions like clerical errors or executory issues. It emphasized finality of judicial orders and dismissed the recall plea as not maintainable.
The Tribunal allowed deduction of royalty paid for use of a logo, noting that no specific defect was found in the supporting evidence. It held that the expenditure could not be disallowed merely on grounds of justification without examining its business purpose.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made where loans are advanced from interest-free funds. It observed that availability of own funds and recovery during the year supported the assessee’s claim.
The Court ruled that reversal of ITC after a long delay does not negate interest liability. It emphasized that interest arises from the time of wrongful claim until reversal. Key takeaway: delayed correction does not absolve liability.
When an entity served both its members and the public, the dominant object test applies. If the regulatory functions lead to borrower protection and financial stability for low-income groups, the GPU status was maintainable.
The Tribunal held that GST collected is not part of income for presumptive taxation under section 44B. It ruled that GST is a statutory levy and cannot be treated as revenue.
The Court held that service of notice solely through the GST portal is not valid where the taxpayer is not monitoring it. It set aside the ex-parte assessment for lack of proper service.
The case addressed whether a demand based on a draft order can be enforced. The Court held that tax liability crystallizes only after final assessment. Key takeaway: draft orders have no enforceable value.
