The court stayed FIR proceedings for non-payment of VAT dues due to significant delay in filing. It held that delayed criminal action weakens prosecution and cannot be sustained mechanically.
The court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue without considering the taxpayer’s objections. Authorities must decide representations before enforcing attachment.
The issue was whether duty drawback demand can be raised on persons other than the exporter. CESTAT held that only the “person chargeable,” i.e., the exporter, can be targeted under Section 11A.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The court held that the 2-year time limit under Section 54 is mandatory and binding on authorities. However, delay can be condoned by High Courts under Article 226 in genuine cases to grant rightful refunds.
The High Court restrained coercive GST recovery as the show cause notice spanned six years in one proceeding. The key takeaway is that consolidated SCNs under Section 74 raise serious legal doubts.
The Tribunal held that commission-based support services provided to foreign entities qualified as export of services, making service tax demands unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that enhancement of import value without properly rejecting transaction value and following sequential valuation methods is legally unsustainable.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders denying CENVAT Credit on rent-a-cab and insurance services, directing the original authority to provide detailed reasons and grant personal hearing.
CESTAT held that valuation under Rule 10A fails where the department cannot prove that goods were manufactured as job work, reaffirming that free supply of some inputs alone is insufficient.
