ITAT Delhi held reassessment orders invalid because the assessee was not supplied with the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 148. The Tribunal ruled that such non-compliance violated the law laid down in GKN Driveshafts.
Tribunal reiterated that credits brought forward from earlier financial years cannot ordinarily be taxed under Section 68 in subsequent years. The matter was remanded for verification because the assessee had not furnished complete creditor details.
CESTAT Chennai held that imported cold heading quality alloy steel products were classifiable as wire under CTH 7229 after undergoing cold drawing processes. The Tribunal ruled that denial of exemption and differential duty demand could not survive once the classification was found correct.
CESTAT Chennai held that services provided to SEZ units for authorised operations remain exempt from service tax even if part of the services are rendered outside SEZ premises. The Tribunal relied on Sections 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act to allow the appeal.
The Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal became operational and timelines were extended, disputes should be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism instead of writ proceedings.
The Bangalore CESTAT held that a refund claim cannot reopen a finalized customs assessment where the importer failed to challenge the self-assessed Bill of Entry within the statutory appeal period.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere misclassification of imported goods does not attract confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Since the goods were not liable for confiscation, penalty on the Customs House Agent under Section 112(a)(ii) was set aside.
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d) and 148. The courts held that reassessment cannot be sustained on allegations that change after issuance of the original notice.
The Delhi High Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained on changing allegations introduced after issuance of notice under Section 148A(b). The Court ruled that reopening must rest only on the original reasons disclosed to the assessee.
Allahabad High Court ruled that while authorities could verify documents during transit, absence of an e-Tax Invoice did not confer jurisdiction to impose penalties in a pure transit State. The Court directed release of goods and vehicles.
