The Court found that intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154(3) were not communicated due to technical reasons. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after a revised audit report was filed.
The Court considered whether ELISA kits qualify as diagnostic items eligible for customs exemption. Pending final adjudication, interim protection was granted with a direction against coercive recovery.
The High Court examined whether sunglasses qualify as spectacles under VAT schedules. It ruled that sunglasses are not covered by the spectacles entry and therefore cannot enjoy the lower tax rate. The key takeaway is that sunglasses must be taxed as residuary goods at 12.5% VAT.
The case examined whether air purifiers qualify as medical devices under a statutory notification. The High Court directed the GST Council to urgently consider lowering or abolishing GST on air purifiers and HEPA filters.
The Court held that an old used gold chain could not be absolutely confiscated by Customs. Both the seized chain and phone were ordered to be released without duty, penalty, or fine.
The High Court noted that the seized bangles were raw gold pieces and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy, ensuring a personal hearing before the appellate authority.
Court held that once neither the alleged seller nor the broker claimed rights in the seized gold, the tribunal’s setting aside of confiscation was no longer tenable. Confiscation of gold and currency was restored, while penalty was set aside as it abated upon death.
The Court upheld rejection of a technical bid because the bidder submitted a GST clearance certificate issued by a private professional instead of the tax department. The ruling clarifies that statutory compliance certificates must come from competent government authorities when mandated by tender conditions.
The High Court quashed dismissal of a GST appeal where the authority ignored the explanation for delayed filing. The ruling stresses reasoned consideration under Section 107(4) before rejecting appeals.
The court held that testing and pairing of smart cards with set-top boxes amounted to permissible processing under Cenvat rules, not requiring reversal of credit.
