Appeals were dismissed earlier as time-barred despite sustained efforts by the assessee through grievances. The Tribunal ruled that absence of negligence and bona fide conduct warranted condonation of long delay.
The Tribunal rejected estimated additions based on alleged circular trading due to lack of seized material or cash trail. The key takeaway is that suspicion and presumptions cannot replace evidence in search assessments.
The Supreme Court ruled that departmental proceedings initiated after superannuation were invalid due to absence of an enabling provision in service regulations. The key takeaway is that disciplinary jurisdiction ends at retirement unless expressly preserved by law.
The issue was whether mushroom-growing shelves could be classified based on their agricultural end use. The Court held that end use is irrelevant unless the tariff heading expressly permits it. Classification must follow the condition and nature of goods at the time of import.
The Supreme Court held that failure to issue a Section 21 notice does not invalidate arbitration where parties intended to arbitrate all disputes. The ruling clarifies that Section 21 is procedural, not jurisdictional.
The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution for bribery can continue where departmental exoneration was based on procedural gaps. The key takeaway is that only a merits-based exoneration destroying the offence can bar prosecution.
The Court held that electricity generated in an SEZ and supplied domestically is not an import under customs law. In the absence of a charging section, the levy was declared unconstitutional and refunds were ordered.
The Supreme Court ruled that withholding mark sheets and degree for a clerical mismatch is unjustified. Universities must correct their errors without harming students’ careers.
The Supreme Court held that extended incarceration without trial commencement breaches the right to life and speedy trial. Statutory bail restrictions cannot justify indefinite custody when proceedings show no real progress.
The Court sustained rejection of disbursal despite earlier sanction, holding that incentives could not exceed prescribed caps. The ruling underscores that sanction alone does not guarantee payment if policy limits bar it.
