The Commission held that bidders colluded by quoting identical and patterned prices across multiple tenders. It found that such conduct indicated pre-determined outcomes and violated competition law.
The issue concerned release of ₹58 lakh seized during GST search. The Court disposed of the petition after authorities agreed to release the amount within ten days, while allowing further legal action if required.
The Court declined interference as proceedings were already initiated by both departments. Petitioners were directed to respond to notices through proper channels.
The Court held that Section 107(11) expressly prohibits remand to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority must decide the case within prescribed options.
The Court held that cash is not covered under the term “things” in Section 67(2). Seizure of currency was declared without authority of law.
The Court held that the impugned order should be challenged through statutory appeal. Writ jurisdiction was not invoked due to the availability of an effective remedy.
The Court ruled that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively without proper application of mind. The order was quashed for lack of objective reasoning.
The Court held that cancellation based on reasons not mentioned in the SCN is unsustainable. The retrospective cancellation was modified to align with procedural fairness.
The Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied merely because the purchase agreement was unregistered. Substantial payment and possession were considered sufficient for claiming relief.
The Tribunal held that where registration is delayed, the stamp duty value on the agreement date must be considered. The ruling applies the beneficial proviso to Section 50C retrospectively.
