The Court closed the tax appeal after noting that the Department’s revised 2024 circular increased the High Court filing limit to ₹2 crore, while the case involved a lower tax effect.
Since petitioner’s requests for time were ignored and no hearing was granted, Court held the order unsustainable. matter was remanded with instructions to allow additional replies and reconsider all issues.
The judgment highlights that GST penalties require proof of intent to evade tax; mere technical lapses, such as e-way bill expiry due to traffic restrictions, are insufficient.
The Court found that the dispute pertained solely to mandatory interest on delayed tax payment, leaving no scope for challenge. It dismissed the petition while allowing the taxpayer to request instalment payment.
Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to reassess ULIP maturity receipts treated as unexplained investment after the exemption claim was not evaluated earlier.
The Court ordered respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the petitioner’s GST refund representation. No findings were made on merits, and all issues remain open.
The case concerns enforcement of a bank guarantee after failure to meet EPCG export obligations. The Court declined to examine merits but directed completion of adjudication on the show-cause notice, clarifying that further action depends on the outcome.
The High Court held that Section 130 cannot be invoked for excess stock found during survey; authorities must follow Sections 73/74 for tax determination. Orders under Section 130 were quashed.
The Tribunal confirmed recovery of erroneously refunded CVD amounts with interest, following the Supreme Court ruling. The appellant’s reliance on prior Tribunal orders was invalidated.
Tribunal held that AO did not establish any defect in identity, genuineness, or creditworthiness of share subscribers. Addition under Section 68 was deleted.
