The authority held that an advance ruling cannot be issued when the same classification issue is already pending before customs officers. Since a show cause notice had been issued earlier, the application was barred under Section 28-I of the Customs Act.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated after three years without approval from the statutorily specified higher authority is invalid. Improper sanction under Section 151 vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Court held that once one GST authority initiates proceedings, the other cannot start fresh action on the same subject. State-issued orders were struck down for violating Section 6(2)(b).
The Supreme Court granted bail noting over eight months of pre-trial custody, absence of charge framing, and likely delay in trial. The ruling balances offence gravity with the right to personal liberty.
The Court held that the Revenues challenge failed since the issue had been conclusively decided by the High Court earlier. Deduction under Section 80IA(4) remained available where the assessee was found to be a developer of infrastructure facilities.
The Court held that findings of the appellate authorities clearly established the assessee’s role as a developer. With concurrent factual findings, the appeal was rejected for lack of any substantial legal question.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrues as income. SC, noting the HC ruling and IBC closure, left intact the principle that retention money is taxable only when received.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrued as income. The Court held that retention money is contingent on contract completion and not taxable until the right to receive crystallises.
The Tribunal held that discounts given to stockists in pharmaceutical distribution are part of sale transactions on a principal-to-principal basis. As no commission was paid, TDS under section 194H was held inapplicable.
While not deciding the validity of the disputed notifications, the High Court granted relief due to lack of hearing.The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the case after receiving the taxpayers reply.
