Calcutta High Court held that reasonable belief of smuggling based on clandestine conduct and scientific purity of metal is justifiable. Accordingly, absolute confiscation of gold upheld as reasonable belief for seizure u/s. 123 duly established.
The court set aside GST orders after finding both original and appellate proceedings were effectively ex-parte. It held that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice before adjudication.
The Court held that payments cannot be denied credit merely because they were recorded under different accounting heads. It ruled that substantive relief under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme must prevail over technical classifications.
The Court directed the jurisdictional authority to consider the delay condonation request after PAN transfer. It held that the application must be decided in accordance with law.
The case examined whether ITC reversal made during inspection was voluntary. The Court held that the timing and presence of authorities indicated lack of voluntariness. It further restored proceedings to protect the Revenue’s statutory rights and allowed fresh action.
The case addressed whether stock discrepancies could be attributed to a sister concern. The Court held that absence of supporting evidence justified the VAT demand and confirmed the assessment.
The issue was whether share transactions constituted business income or capital gains. The Court upheld investor status based on consistent treatment and factual findings, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.
The Court held that cancellation cannot be applied retrospectively unless the show cause notice clearly proposes such action. Orders exceeding the scope of the notice are legally unsustainable.
The Court held that retrospective cancellation requires clear justification and cannot be applied mechanically. In absence of reasons, the effective date was revised to the show cause notice date.
AI Adil Trader Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Telangana High Court) The Telangana High Court examined the validity of a show cause notice dated 01.11.2024 and a consequential order cancelling GST registration dated 16.01.2025, both challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective as it failed […]
