The court held that the 2-year time limit under Section 54 is mandatory and binding on authorities. However, delay can be condoned by High Courts under Article 226 in genuine cases to grant rightful refunds.
The Court held that failure to address objections regarding sample mismatch vitiates the order. It directed fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Court held that Tribunal remand is not a fresh reference under transfer pricing law. Hence, limitation expired earlier, entitling the assessee to refund.
The court held that granting status quo over the full property was disproportionate to the plaintiff’s limited claim. It set aside the injunction for failing to consider balance of convenience.
The court held that amounts received under interim orders cannot be taxed as income when the dispute is unresolved. Taxability arises only after final adjudication crystallizes the right.
The court examined whether penalty and detention without notifying the known owner violated natural justice. Interim relief allowed release of goods on deposit.
The Court examined allegations of fraudulent ITC claims and found that the petitioner’s actions were bona fide. It held that no offence was established and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
The court held that seizure and prohibition orders cannot continue without a confiscation proposal. The absence of such proceedings led to quashing of the orders.
The Court examined a challenge to an assessment order involving ITC reversal and interest liability. It held that failure to exercise statutory options for reduced penalty justified dismissal of the writ.
F S Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court disposed of multiple petitions through a common judgment as the facts and issues involved were substantially similar. The petitioner, a proprietary concern registered under the GST Acts, had supplied TMT bars and related goods pursuant to an order from a registered […]
