The Tribunal remanded the case after finding that ITC reversals on unsold inventory were not adequately examined. It directed fresh investigation to verify the impact on profiteering calculations and ensure proper assessment.
The tribunal held that no late fee under Section 234E can be imposed for periods prior to 1 June 2015 due to absence of enabling provisions in Section 200A. The levy was deleted following consistent judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that dismissal of appeal solely on limitation without considering bona fide reasons was unjustified. It restored the matter for adjudication on merits, emphasizing a liberal approach.
The Court held that combining multiple financial years in a single show cause notice violates the CGST Act scheme. It quashed the notice and allowed fresh issuance as per law.
The tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed without direct evidence connecting the appellant to alleged overvalued exports. Mere suspicion and assumptions were found insufficient.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment after noting that books of accounts were not produced and required reconsideration. It directed a fresh decision with proper opportunity, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The case addressed whether a second GST refund application is maintainable when a prior claim covered the same period. The Court held that no statutory bar exists under Section 54(1), and rejection on technical grounds was invalid.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Addition under Section 69A was deleted as the AO failed to rebut the explanation.
The tribunal ruled that reliance only on an investigation report without independent evidence cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Additions under Section 68 and commission were deleted.
