The Tribunal held that mere facilitation of third-party payments to an associated enterprise does not constitute a service. As no value addition was involved, applying a markup on reimbursements was found unsustainable.
The Court restored GST registration after accepting that non-filing of returns for six months was caused by genuine illness and financial constraints. Restoration was granted subject to strict compliance conditions.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank had duly served, published, and affixed the sale notice as required under Rule 8(6). It ruled that the DRT erred in cancelling the auction despite full statutory compliance.
The appellate tribunal upheld the award of 9% interest on refund to an auction purchaser, holding that statutory violations by the bank’s authorised officer justified compensation despite a no-interest clause.
The appellate tribunal held that the magistrate had lawfully exercised powers under Section 14 after considering the statutory affidavit. The DRT’s restraint on recovery action was found to be contrary to law and was set aside.
The Delhi High Court upheld exclusion of multiple comparables after finding them functionally different from a low-risk investment advisory service provider. It held that such findings were factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.
The court held that an appeal filed beyond the maximum condonable period under GST law cannot be entertained, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override statutory timelines.
The appellate tribunal held that the bank violated Rule 8(5) by conducting the auction nearly ten months after valuation without obtaining a fresh report. The sale and subsequent actions were set aside on this ground.
The court refused to grant a mandatory stay on income tax demand where the taxpayer had earlier proposed paying dues in instalments. The ruling underscores that voluntary payment proposals can weaken claims for interim protection.
The tribunal held that objections to the maintainability of a bank’s Original Application claiming over Rs. 50 crores were rejected, affirming DRT jurisdiction over debts arising from fraudulent withdrawals.
