The High Court held that arrest was not necessary in a dispute over a GST overdraft arrangement. Bail was granted with conditions, noting custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
The Court held that reassessment proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to factual disputes. In absence of jurisdictional defect, the matter must be adjudicated by the Assessing Officer.
Relying on apex court precedents, the High Court ruled that ordinarily bail should be granted in CGST cases involving documentary evidence and limited punishment.
The Court held that notice under Section 148A(b) was valid despite search-related arguments. However, the assessment was set aside due to absence of proper reasoning on denial of Section 10(38) exemption for long-term capital gains.
The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 54F must be computed with reference to actual sale consideration received, not the deemed value under Section 50C. The matter was remanded for recomputation of LTCG accordingly.
The Court upheld that sugar, edible oil and vanaspati fall within Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Marketing Act. Market fees can be levied if procurement occurs within the notified market area.
The Appellate Authority held that it cannot condone delay beyond the 30-day extended period prescribed under Section 100(2) of the CGST Act. As the appeal was filed 250 days after communication of the AAR order, it was dismissed without examining merits.
The Tribunal held that once depreciation on goodwill is allowed in the first year, it cannot be questioned in subsequent years. Revisional powers under Section 263 were found to be wrongly invoked.
The ITAT held that an assessment and appellate order passed without effective participation, allegedly due to notices sent to a wrong email address, must be set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Holding that responsibility for delay required factual adjudication, the High Court refused to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated the parties to civil or arbitral remedies.
