The Court set aside the show cause notice, Order-in-Original, and Order-in-Appeal after holding that the assessee must be given an opportunity to file a fresh reply. The matter was remitted for reconsideration from the SCN-reply stage.
The Court observed that marketing services for a foreign university prima facie constitute export of services, making the petitioner eligible for GST refund.
Authorities determined that the imported device aligned with excluded serial items relating to optical transport systems, leading to denial of duty concession. The ruling underscores the importance of circular-based product identification.
Supreme Court found that a GST notice alleging fraud lacked material particulars and stayed further proceedings. Key takeaway: SCNs under Section 74 must clearly state the factual basis for alleging fraud or suppression.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a GST show-cause notice, emphasizing that statutory remedies under Section 107 must be exhausted first. The Court clarified that the SCN contains specific allegations of fraud and willful misstatement.
The Court ruled that municipal bodies cannot levy advertisement tax after the GST regime and quashed the recovery demand. It also ordered refund of tax collected post-GST, subject to unjust enrichment.
Karnataka High Court allowed a 36-day delay in filing income tax returns, citing system failure and unavoidable circumstances as sufficient cause for condonation under Section 119(2)(b).
Discharge was denied where a complaint and verification report indicated an alleged ₹1,000 bribe demand. The High Court confirmed that prima facie material suffices for framing charges. The case was allowed to proceed to trial despite procedural objections.
The Tribunal held that customs authorities lacked legal authority to levy cost recovery charges, rendering the commissioner’s order unsustainable. It directed full refund of charges paid by the custodian.
The Court refused to remand a detailed GST order and required a full pre-deposit to pursue an appeal. It held that prior participation opportunities were not used by the petitioner. Any recovered amount must be adjusted toward the pre-deposit.
