The issue was whether approval can be sought after project commencement. It was held that Form 20 must be filed before starting the project, making prior approval essential for tax benefits.
The issue was whether tax benefits can be claimed without filing Form 19. It was held that notification is compulsory, and benefits cannot be allowed without fulfilling this requirement.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The Tribunal held that a successful bidder cannot claim wide-ranging exemptions from statutory compliances. The key takeaway is that reliefs must be reasonable and legally permissible.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The case involved allegations of fraudulent ITC through fake invoices. The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence showing personal benefit to the accused. The key takeaway is that lack of direct gain can influence bail decisions in economic offences.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
The issue involved ex parte orders passed after SCNs were uploaded in a manner not effectively communicated. The Court held that such service did not ensure proper notice and denied opportunity to respond. The key takeaway is that effective communication of notices is essential for valid adjudication.
The issue involved recovery of export refunds based on Rule 96(10). The Court held that omission of the rule without a saving clause removed the legal basis for such recovery. The key takeaway is that proceedings cannot survive when the underlying rule ceases to exist.
The issue involved excess credit utilisation beyond the 20% cap in certain months. The Tribunal held that the rule does not mandate monthly computation and must be assessed annually. The key takeaway is that compliance with overall yearly limits is sufficient under Rule 6.
