The Court directed release of seized areca nuts upon deposit of Rs.5.23 lakh, noting the goods were perishable and ownership was undisputed. The deposit will abide by the outcome of the pending writ petition.
The High Court denied bail, citing the applicant’s significant and instrumental role in the alleged bribery conspiracy. Prior rejection and gravity of offence weighed against release.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to ensure consistent adjudication.
GSTAT held that claims of increased royalty, rent, and commissions were unsupported by cogent evidence. The supplier failed to rebut the presumption that GST rate reduction must result in commensurate price cuts.
The Tribunal accepted DGAP findings that total profiteering was ₹5.20 crore, though ₹6.63 crore had already been passed on. Only ₹5.80 lakh remains payable to certain buyers.
CAAR refused to entertain the advance ruling application, holding that classification of roasted areca nuts under Heading 2008 had already been decided by the Madras High Court. The authority invoked the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2).
The Authority held that a car window guide rail is not a machine part under 8479 but a motor vehicle body component under 87082900, based on its sole and principal use.
elying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld ITAT’s finding that reopening based on reappraisal of existing records is invalid. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
The High Court set aside an ex parte GST order after finding lack of proper service and denial of hearing. It held that mandatory opportunity under Section 75 must be granted before adverse determination.
The Court held that renting space within a university campus for banks and similar facilities forms part of allied educational services. Consequently, the service tax demand and penalties were quashed.
