The Tribunal held that adjustments made without issuing prior notice to the assessee violate the mandatory proviso to Section 143(1)(a). Such actions were declared legally unsustainable and liable to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that CPC cannot make adjustments without issuing prior notice under Section 143(1)(a). The disallowance of TDS credit was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court held that the matter was already settled by an earlier decision on identical facts. It extended the same relief, emphasizing consistency in judicial rulings.
The Court held that electricity duty collected by a licensee is not its own liability but that of consumers. As a result, Section 43B was found inapplicable and the disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
The SC refused to interfere where the High Court had quashed reassessment based on binding precedents. It held that no ground existed to reopen findings already settled by earlier rulings.
The Court quashed all notices and orders as the matter was identical to earlier decisions. It ruled that consistency with precedent requires setting aside such proceedings.
The Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely because supplier registrations were cancelled retrospectively. It ruled that absence of evidence of collusion requires fresh verification before denying credit.
