The High Court set aside GST registration cancellations because the show cause notices did not propose retrospective cancellation. Authorities must clearly notify taxpayers before taking such action.
GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine the profiteering computation after questions were raised about ignored cost increases, negative values, and supply channel considerations.
GSTAT concluded that elimination of entertainment tax and other levies reduced the effective tax incidence, requiring suppliers to pass on the benefit to subscribers.
The Competition Commission of India held that allegations of airlines jointly fixing cancellation charges were unsupported by evidence of any agreement or concerted action. As a result, no violation of Section 3 of the Competition Act was established and the complaint was dismissed.
The Competition Commission of India held that exclusive agreements between an online movie ticketing platform and cinemas did not lead to market foreclosure. Despite dominance in the online ticketing market, the Commission found no evidence of denial of market access to competitors.
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order because verification reports relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the taxpayer. The court held that denying access to such reports violates principles of natural justice and ordered a fresh hearing.
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court ruling after finding that it failed to consider documentary evidence and concurrent findings on possession while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
The court held that although the defendant established title through a court auction purchase, injunction could not be granted as possession on the date of the suit was not proved.
The ITAT Ahmedabad cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication, holding that penalty based on the original order cannot survive once the assessment itself is reopened.
