Failure to disclose registered valuer details in explanatory statements led to penalties under Section 450. Each instance was treated as a separate violation, resulting in significant cumulative penalties.
The authority imposed a penalty on the director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4. It held that the signatory is responsible for accuracy of filings, even if the error was inadvertent.
This case highlights how delays in filing appeals against adverse GST orders weaken the department’s legal position. It underscores that prompt scrutiny and timely appeals are essential to protect government revenue.
This case examines delays in transferring non-priority files after departmental restructuring. It mandates systematic redistribution to ensure efficiency and avoid operational bottlenecks.
This case highlights lapses in examining tribunal orders before filing revisions. It mandates detailed legal analysis and reasoned remarks to justify appeals and protect revenue.
The ruling highlights gaps in recovery proceedings due to unclear role allocation. It strengthens the system by redefining responsibilities under key GST rules.
The Tribunal held reassessment invalid as the alleged escaped income did not exceed ₹50 lakh required for extended limitation. It ruled that invoking extended time under Section 149 without satisfying this condition is illegal.
The issue was estimation of commission income from alleged accommodation entries. The tribunal held that addition should be restricted to 0.5% on proven transactions, not inflated amounts.
The authority ruled that failure to mention CIN on documents was not a continuing offence. Penalty was limited to specific instances, significantly reducing liability.
The issue was whether donation to a political party qualified for deduction under Section 80GGC. The tribunal held the claim was not genuine and upheld disallowance due to lack of credibility.
