A sanction for prosecution granted by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority is constitutionally invalid and void ab initio. Such defect becomes incurable where subsequent withdrawal of State consent under the DSPE Act bars any fresh exercise of CBI jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court held that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue decided issues. The Revenue failed to show any apparent error in the earlier direction to process returns.
The Tribunal held that IGST demand based on alleged breach of pre-import condition was unsustainable where export obligations were fulfilled and EODCs were issued. Acceptance of EODCs and bond cancellation closed the exemption compliance.
The Court stayed the adjudication order where similar GST classification issues were already pending. Interim relief was granted until final disposal of the petition.
The Court ruled that filing GSTR-3B returns and paying tax nullifies best judgment assessment orders under Section 62. Interest liability for delayed payment, however, was left intact.
The tribunal accepted an area-based methodology for computing profiteering in a housing project, rejecting turnover-linked calculations. The ruling confirms that uniform per-square-foot benefit must be passed on to all eligible buyers.
A slight increase in post-GST ITC was held to amount to profiteering when not passed on. The tribunal directed refund of the quantified benefit with interest to eligible buyers.
The Court held that a final GST adjudication order passed within three months of the show cause notice violates Section 73 of the CGST Act. Orders issued without granting the statutory minimum response period were declared unsustainable.
CESTAT held that local transportation of goods, even with incidental loading, cannot be taxed as cargo handling when contracts are divisible. The service tax demand and penalty were therefore set aside.
The issue was whether a final assessment could stand when objections were filed before the DRP but not considered by the AO. The Court ruled that such an order violates the scheme of section 144C and must be set aside.
