The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to examine exemption eligibility and supporting documents, directing fresh consideration of service tax liability.
The Bombay High Court held that delays caused by genuine technical glitches do not invalidate SVLDRS benefits, distinguishing cases of financial incapacity.
Gujarat HC held that ex parte orders are invalid if personal hearing notices under Section 37C are not properly delivered with proof, reinforcing procedural fairness.
Karnataka HC held that GST authorities must provide taxpayers a chance to furnish missing documents before rejecting refund claims, reinforcing procedural fairness.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 153A cannot apply to years without incriminating material, reinforcing the principle that tax additions require concrete evidence.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Court held that deposits taken during investigation were not duty payments, so Section 11BB did not apply. Interest was payable from the date of deposit at 12%, reinforcing that revenue cannot retain money without authority of law.
Observing that the revisional authority failed to properly assess the taxpayer’s material in the ₹3.6 crore case, the High Court directed a fresh decision after full consideration.
CESTAT Mumbai set aside an order that rejected an exporter’s supplementary claim for Swatch Bharat Cess (SBC) refund. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has no bar on filing multiple refund claims for the same period.
CESTAT Delhi set aside an appellate order, holding that the time limit for filing an appeal starts from the date the rectification of mistake order (Section 74) is passed. The appeal was therefore deemed filed within the prescribed limitation period.
