The case addressed whether authorities can change the taxable category during adjudication. The Tribunal ruled that the show cause notice is the foundation and cannot be altered. The demand was set aside as it exceeded the scope of the notice.
The Tribunal held that although inclusion of freight and insurance was legally justified, the department failed to establish suppression or intent to evade duty. Consequently, the extended limitation period was held inapplicable and the demand was quashed.
High Court allowed restoration of GST registration even after dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds. Relief was granted subject to filing returns and payment of dues.
The Court held that serving notices at an outdated address violates natural justice. The proceedings were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
CESTAT held that secondment of employees is taxable as manpower supply service. However, it set aside extended period demands due to absence of suppression.
The case addressed whether delayed appeals can be entertained through writ jurisdiction. The Court ruled that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be circumvented.
The Court held that statutory amendments extending the ITC time limit override earlier restrictions. It ruled that ITC for FY 2018-19 can be validly claimed up to November 30, 2021. The demand based on earlier limitation was therefore unsustainable.
ITAT confirmed validity of reassessment based on cash deposit information. However, it reduced addition by applying peak credit theory due to withdrawal patterns
ITAT held that failure to record how seized material impacts taxable income invalidates proceedings. All assessments were quashed due to defective satisfaction note.
The Tribunal held that exemption benefits cannot be claimed under a notification issued after the filing of Bills of Entry. It ruled that the relevant date for duty determination is the date of filing, not clearance.
