The Court examined whether additions based on a seized document were valid. It held that lack of investigation and inconsistencies rendered the additions unsustainable.
The issue was whether authorities could refuse symbol allotment without legal grounds. The Court ruled that absence of prohibition required fair consideration and granted relief.
The Tribunal examined whether foreign assignment salary credited in India is taxable. It held that salary for services rendered outside India is not taxable, even if received in India.
The Tribunal examined whether VRS compensation could be restricted under section 10(10B). It held that the scheme was effectively retrenchment, allowing full exemption and deleting the addition.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The Tribunal held that a successful bidder cannot claim wide-ranging exemptions from statutory compliances. The key takeaway is that reliefs must be reasonable and legally permissible.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The case involved allegations of fraudulent ITC through fake invoices. The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence showing personal benefit to the accused. The key takeaway is that lack of direct gain can influence bail decisions in economic offences.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
The issue involved ex parte orders passed after SCNs were uploaded in a manner not effectively communicated. The Court held that such service did not ensure proper notice and denied opportunity to respond. The key takeaway is that effective communication of notices is essential for valid adjudication.
