The appellate tribunal held that a date discrepancy in the possession notice was a harmless typographical error. It ruled that SARFAESI procedures were substantially complied with and restored the bank’s recovery action.
The addition for alleged cash paid towards property purchase was deleted as the transaction itself stood cancelled. The ruling confirms that cancelled transactions weaken unexplained cash allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming that repeated failure to file written statements despite ample opportunity validates ex-parte recovery orders.
The High Court set aside GST refund rejection orders after noting that Rule 96(10) was omitted without saving pending proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that inability to trace proof of dispatch of hearing notices does not automatically establish denial of personal hearing, especially in ITC fraud cases.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
The court found a prima facie overlap between excess ITC due to non-reconciliation and ITC disallowed under Section 16(4), directing partial pre-deposit and fresh adjudication.
The High Court found prima facie overlap between two assessment proceedings for the same tax period. The demand was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the taxpayer to file a reply.
The Bombay High Court set aside GST orders as they were based solely on Rule 96(10), which was omitted without a saving clause, and remanded no further action under that rule.
