The Court examined whether reassessment based on search could extend beyond statutory timelines. It held that the notice for AY 2015–16 was issued beyond the permissible ten-year period. The ruling confirms that limitation provisions must be strictly followed.
The Tribunal interpreted Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to allow refund of taxes paid under existing law. It held that such claims survive the repeal of earlier statutes. The appeal was allowed and remanded.
The Court held that filing NIL returns does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 29(2) of the GST Act. As a result, the cancellation order and show cause notice were declared legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee could not participate in proceedings due to lack of knowledge. It remanded the matter to ensure proper hearing and adjudication on merits.
Despite delay and repeated non-appearance, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a ₹10,000 cost. The ruling balances taxpayer conduct with the need for fair adjudication.
The issue was whether authorities can block ITC beyond available balance. The Court held that Rule 86A allows restriction only on existing credit and does not permit negative blocking.
The issue was whether GST demand could stand despite a later order dropping similar liability. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The key takeaway is that overlapping assessments must be properly reconciled.
The case examined whether documents found during search can be automatically attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal ruled that ownership and connection must be established through evidence. The decision underscores limits of statutory presumptions under Section 292C.
The case examined classification of bank interest earned by a credit co-operative society. The Tribunal ruled it is business income and not income from other sources. The decision allows full deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The case examined default arising from a loan backed by corporate guarantee. The Tribunal found that non-payment triggered insolvency proceedings. The decision highlights consequences of guarantee invocation.
