The court declined to entertain a fresh writ challenging entry tax where the petitioner had not filed an earlier petition. The ruling clarifies that Supreme Court-granted revival applies only to previously dismissed writs.
The Court ruled that a reference seeking overseas tax information for an ineligible assessment year was impermissible, preventing extension of the limitation period and rendering the assessment time-barred.
The Court refused to interfere with ex-parte GST orders where the taxpayer failed to reply or attend hearings. Blaming a professional advisor was held insufficient to bypass statutory procedure.
The Tribunal found that the appellate order was passed ex parte without a reasoned decision. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication after granting proper hearing.
The court examined an assessment passed without considering the taxpayers detailed reply. It held that non-consideration of the reply violates natural justice, warranting remand.
The dispute concerned whether DRT Hyderabad had territorial jurisdiction over a recovery application. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction was valid since the bank office maintaining the loan account was located at Hyderabad.
The case examined whether assignment of programme copyright was a service or a sale. The Tribunal held that permanent transfer of copyright is a sale liable to VAT, not service tax.
The Tribunal held that revision under section 263 was invalid where the MAT adjustment arose mechanically from a transition amount already examined in an earlier year, and no fresh error was shown.
The Court held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 was prima facie invoked only for specific ITC allegations and not for all demands. Recovery was stayed as most claims appeared to fall outside the extended period.
The Tribunal held that remanding an assessment under the amended section 251(1)(a) is legally valid. The key takeaway is that appellate remand powers now have clear statutory backing.
