Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner(Appeals) and ADG (CESTAT Delhi) In Agarwal Jagdish Construction Co. Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner (Appeals) and ADG, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi examined the rejection of a service tax refund claim of ₹70,46,602 filed by the appellant for the period June 2015 to […]
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal as the delay exceeded the statutory condonable limit under IBC. The ruling reinforces strict adherence to limitation timelines.
The tribunal ruled that state VAT provisions do not prevail over the Insolvency Code. Tax dues were rightly treated as operational debt under the resolution plan.
The Tribunal examined whether credit can be denied due to non-existent supplier addresses. It held that absence of evidence proving non-receipt of services invalidates such denial. The ruling confirms that valid invoices and payment proof are sufficient to sustain credit.
The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed where tax liability arises from retrospective amendment and conflicting legal views. The absence of clear liability during the relevant period justified waiver.
The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during assessment does not absolve liability. The ruling highlights importance of correct income reporting.
The Court held that ignoring the taxpayer’s reply renders the order invalid. It emphasised that adjudication must consider submissions before passing orders.
The Court examined whether reassessment based on search could extend beyond statutory timelines. It held that the notice for AY 2015–16 was issued beyond the permissible ten-year period. The ruling confirms that limitation provisions must be strictly followed.
The Tribunal interpreted Section 142(3) of the CGST Act to allow refund of taxes paid under existing law. It held that such claims survive the repeal of earlier statutes. The appeal was allowed and remanded.
The Court held that filing NIL returns does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 29(2) of the GST Act. As a result, the cancellation order and show cause notice were declared legally unsustainable.
