The Court examined whether a single notice covering multiple years was valid. It held that differing limitation periods make such notices prejudicial and upheld separate adjudication.
The Court examined whether additions based on a seized document were valid. It held that lack of investigation and inconsistencies rendered the additions unsustainable.
The company could not claim the concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification No. 41/2017-IT(Rate), as the supply of HDPE drums was made to a chemical manufacturer rather than directly to the registered merchant exporter.
The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The case involved allegations of fraudulent ITC through fake invoices. The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence showing personal benefit to the accused. The key takeaway is that lack of direct gain can influence bail decisions in economic offences.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration due to non-filing of returns. The Court held that absence of fraud or tax evasion justified granting an opportunity for restoration. The key takeaway is that procedural defaults may be cured through compliance.
The issue involved ex parte orders passed after SCNs were uploaded in a manner not effectively communicated. The Court held that such service did not ensure proper notice and denied opportunity to respond. The key takeaway is that effective communication of notices is essential for valid adjudication.
The issue involved recovery of export refunds based on Rule 96(10). The Court held that omission of the rule without a saving clause removed the legal basis for such recovery. The key takeaway is that proceedings cannot survive when the underlying rule ceases to exist.
The issue involved delay in formal arrest despite recovery of contraband at the airport. The Court held that failure to produce the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours resulted in illegal detention. The key takeaway is that procedural safeguards on arrest must be strictly followed even in NDPS cases.
