The court set aside an ex-parte adjudication order where no reply was filed to the show-cause notice due to a bona fide lapse. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. It granted liberty to approach the Tribunal and disposed of the writ petition.
The authority held that penalty under Section 114AA cannot be imposed without proof of knowledge or intent. It ruled that absence of evidence linking the courier to Pakistan-origin goods warranted deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
The case examined whether procedural violations in transfers between EOUs justify duty demands. The Tribunal held that such lapses alone are insufficient and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
The court addressed whether exporters can recover duty paid despite time-barred rebate claims. It held that a fresh application under Section 142(3) can be filed to seek re-credit or refund of excess duty.
The Court dismissed the appeal as the delay was not properly explained. It reaffirmed that strict compliance with limitation rules applies equally to government bodies.
The Tribunal held that excess service tax paid inadvertently does not qualify as tax under law. As a result, limitation under Section 11B was held inapplicable and refund was allowed with interest.
Expenses incurred for a proposed business project later abandoned were allowed as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal held that such costs remain deductible if incurred for business purposes.
The Tribunal ruled that failure to issue prior notice before making adjustments violates the mandatory provisions of Section 143(1)(a). Such procedural lapse renders the entire adjustment legally unsustainable.
