The Tribunal held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus when books are accepted and payments are made through banking channels. The addition under section 69C was deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.
The Court rejected the anticipatory bail application as the applicant was absconding and implicated in a fraudulent lottery cybercrime. Bail was denied considering the nature of offences under IPC and IT Act.
The court held that the challenge to the 2021 GST demand order was filed after an unjustified four-year delay. The petition was dismissed as barred by laches.
The Court held that the petitioner challenged a 7A order without first using the statutory appeal under Section 7-I. The writ was dismissed as Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent prescribed remedies.
The Tribunal held that export duty must be based on the final invoice and BRC, rejecting reliance on CRCL moisture results. The case was remanded for fresh computation of refund and interest.
The Allahabad HC held that the show cause notice under Section 74 was invalid as it did not specify fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, quashing the notice.
An ex-parte GST order was quashed as the SCN and reminders were not effectively communicated to the petitioner. The Delhi High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, requiring personal hearing and submission of replies. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for taxpayers under the GST regime.
The Court ruled that reassessment for a pre-CIRP period cannot continue when no claim was filed during CIRP and the approved resolution plan extinguished past dues. It held that post-approval tax demands are invalid.
The Karnataka High Court set aside a GST demand order after notices were sent to the petitioner’s email Junk Folder, preventing awareness and response. The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication, ensuring the petitioner can submit replies and be heard.
The Tribunal held that section 54 relief cannot be denied merely because the new property was purchased in the spouse’s name. It ruled that actual investment of capital gains is the key requirement.
