The GSTAT directed the DGAP to re-examine profiteering calculations after observing a possible miscalculation in the Input Tax Credit figures. The Tribunal sought additional documents and ordered submission of a supplementary report.
The GSTAT set aside the DGAP’s profiteering report after questioning the methodology used to calculate Input Tax Credit benefits in a real estate project. The Tribunal directed a fresh investigation and recalculation of alleged profiteering.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that statements relied upon against assessees cannot be used without following the mandatory procedure under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act. The matters were remanded after finding violation of principles of natural justice.
The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still requires satisfaction recorded during assessment proceedings. Absence of such satisfaction rendered the penalty invalid.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an audit report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B was a procedural lapse that could not defeat substantive exemption rights under Section 12A. The Court directed the authority to decide the condonation application within a specified timeline.
The Calcutta High Court held that a rectification order under Section 154 passed after the statutory limitation period was without jurisdiction. The Court consequently quashed the order and related recovery proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 had been constituted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal examined a case where a resolution plan initially failed to secure required votes but was later approved after re-voting, ultimately achieving 100% CoC approval.
NCLT held that inclusion of a prospective bidder in an email chain was an isolated inadvertent act caused by auto-suggest and not a deliberate breach of confidentiality. The Tribunal found no evidence of mala fide intent or unfair advantage.
Delhi High Court ordered Xiaomi entities to secure ₹272 crore because SEP implementers cannot continue exploiting standardized patented technology without furnishing interim security during FRAND disputes, even before final determination of infringement or royalty rates.
