The Tribunal held that failure to consider additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings violates principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that a claim for refund of money deposited under a commercial plot allotment scheme arises from contractual obligations. Such disputes must be pursued before a civil court and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
Calcutta High Court held that GST circulars issued in 2022 cannot retrospectively restrict refund claims when the taxpayer’s right to claim refund had already accrued and the application was filed within the statutory limitation period under Section 54.
The Tribunal upheld deletion of a Section 14A disallowance after noting that the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. The ruling reiterates that Section 14A cannot be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
The High Court quashed the appellate order rejecting a GST appeal on the ground of manual filing. The Court held that once the authority accepted the appeal and heard it on merits, it could not dismiss it later on a technical ground.
The Tribunal found merit in the respondent’s argument that ITC comparison should be based on identical goods and services and directed DGAP to re-investigate.
The Court observed that show cause notices had clearly provided opportunities for personal hearing and submission of documents. It directed payment of costs after finding the allegation of denial of natural justice to be false.
The Tribunal held that an amount paid under protest before adjudication cannot be treated as duty under the Central Excise Act. It ruled that interest at 12% per annum must be paid from the date of deposit until refund.
The Tribunal allowed the bank’s recovery application after borrowers failed to appear or dispute the claim, resulting in an ex-parte decision. It permitted recovery of ₹37.80 lakh with interest and costs and allowed sale of hypothecated assets if payment is not made.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
