The court held that initiating proceedings under the penalty provision for alleged excess stock discovered during a survey was improper. It ruled that such cases must be dealt with under assessment provisions, leading to quashing of the order.
The Court examined whether Section 130 could be used when discrepancies were found during a GST survey. It held that the correct legal route is Sections 73/74 and reinforced settled precedents.
The Court examined whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 were valid for alleged excess stock found during a survey. It held that the law mandates action under Sections 73/74, rendering the orders unsustainable.
The Court examined whether Section 130 proceedings were valid when excess stock was found during a survey. It held that such cases must be dealt with under Sections 73/74, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The court held that tax determination must follow Sections 73 or 74 and cannot be replaced by Section 130 proceedings. It found the action legally unsustainable. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance under GST law.
The issue involved allegations of mismanagement framed under company law provisions. The Tribunal held that the core dispute arose from contractual obligations under a term sheet. It referred the matter to arbitration, emphasizing that such disputes must follow agreed dispute resolution mechanisms.
The issue involved estimation of income based solely on bank credits without supporting verification. The Tribunal remanded the case, directing assessment based on GST and VAT turnover.
The court held that only the income component of alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire transaction. It upheld the Tribunal’s restriction of addition to 6%. The ruling reinforces limits on full disallowance.
The Tribunal held that delayed submission of required certificates constituted a procedural lapse without intent to evade duty. It reduced penalties and redemption fine. The ruling emphasizes leniency in technical non-compliance cases.
The tribunal held that interest cannot be disallowed where advances to related parties are made for business purposes and out of own funds, emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency.
