The court held that reopening beyond the permissible period was invalid where full disclosures were made and no new material emerged. Reassessment based solely on existing records was ruled time-barred.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal solely on the ground of delay beyond the condonable period. The Court condoned the marginal delay and restored the appeal.
The case examined allegations of market access denial and abuse of dominance in digital advertising and search services. The Commission closed the matter, holding that vague pleadings and lack of specific evidence did not establish a prima facie violation.
The tribunal held that where key sales and purchase documents were not examined at assessment, the issue must be remanded. Cash deposit additions were set aside for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.
The issue was whether inverter components used in electric vehicles could be treated as motor vehicle parts. CAAR ruled that electrical machinery is excluded from Chapter 87, confirming classification under Chapter 85.
CAAR held that a magnesium- and zinc-based micronutrient product cannot be treated as “other fertilizer” under Chapter 31 since phosphorus was present only in insignificant quantity.
The issue was whether Section 74 penalties apply when tax is paid later but monthly returns were not filed. SC upheld that wilful suppression through non-filing justifies penalty despite subsequent payment.
Identical prices and bids filed within minutes in two tenders were held to be strong evidence of coordination beyond mere coincidence.
The High Court rejected the challenge to reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. It held that the issue was already settled against the assessee.
The Tribunal remanded the case because the Commissioner (Appeals) decided a Section 248 appeal without hearing the Assessing Officer. The ruling highlights that statutory hearing requirements under Section 250 must be followed.
