The issue involved whether jurisdictional officers could issue reassessment notices. The Court set aside High Court rulings after a retrospective amendment clarified their authority and remanded the matter.
The court disposed of the petition after the State withdrew the contested GST cancellation order. Authorities were directed to restore the registration promptly. The ruling clarifies that defective orders may be withdrawn and corrected.
The High Court set aside the adjudication order after finding that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice. It remitted the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity to present evidence.
The Court found that the authority acted solely on a recommendation without independent evaluation. It ruled that such action does not meet the statutory requirement of reason to believe.
The court held that solar power system supplies must follow the statutory 70:30 valuation mechanism, rejecting full 18% taxation. It ruled that separate invoicing does not negate eligibility for concessional treatment.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening founded on a change of opinion is impermissible, and such reassessment was quashed. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
