The Court ruled that refund claims under inverted duty structure cannot be restricted using the earlier anomalous formula once Rule 89(5) was amended to remove inconsistencies. The authorities were directed to reconsider the refund claims under the amended provisions.
The Delhi High Court held that income tax returns and taxable income details are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Court ruled that such information cannot be disclosed merely because it is sought in a matrimonial dispute.
The case involved GST proceedings initiated after alleged excess stock was found during a factory survey. The Court held that Section 130 proceedings were wrongly initiated and invalidated the confiscation-related orders passed by the authorities.
High Court held that customs regulations require verification through reliable documents and data, not mandatory physical inspection of a client’s premises.
The court held that initiating proceedings under the penalty provision for alleged excess stock discovered during a survey was improper. It ruled that such cases must be dealt with under assessment provisions, leading to quashing of the order.
The Court examined whether Section 130 could be used when discrepancies were found during a GST survey. It held that the correct legal route is Sections 73/74 and reinforced settled precedents.
The Court examined whether confiscation proceedings under Section 130 were valid for alleged excess stock found during a survey. It held that the law mandates action under Sections 73/74, rendering the orders unsustainable.
The Court examined whether Section 130 proceedings were valid when excess stock was found during a survey. It held that such cases must be dealt with under Sections 73/74, rendering the penalty order unsustainable.
The court held that tax determination must follow Sections 73 or 74 and cannot be replaced by Section 130 proceedings. It found the action legally unsustainable. The ruling reinforces procedural compliance under GST law.
The court held that only the income component of alleged bogus purchases can be taxed, not the entire transaction. It upheld the Tribunal’s restriction of addition to 6%. The ruling reinforces limits on full disallowance.
