The Court set aside an assessment passed despite an existing stay order, holding that proceedings undertaken in violation of judicial restraint cannot stand.
The Court examined whether denial of R&D approval for earlier years was justified despite later recognition. It directed authorities to reconsider applications afresh, stressing that prior years cannot be ignored without proper reasoning.
The Court held that self-assessment tax paid due to failure of an initial IDS declaration must be treated as payment under the revived Scheme, preventing double taxation of the same income.
The judgment clarified that merely assisting a foreign entity does not amount to arranging supplies between third parties. Without such facilitation, intermediary provisions and related tax demands cannot be sustained.
Services rendered without consideration were taxed as deemed supplies but denied export benefits. The Court flagged the statutory conflict and directed CBIC to clarify.
The Court examined whether tax authorities could recover the full disputed tax despite pending appellate remedies. It held that recovery beyond the statutory pre-deposit limits under GST law was impermissible.
The Court held that recovery could be stayed and bank attachment lifted if 20% of the disputed amount is deposited, directing the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal on merits.
The Court remanded multiple GST assessment orders where the taxpayer failed to reply to show cause notices, subject to a 50% pre-deposit. A separate penalty order for delayed returns was upheld.
The issue was whether reassessment could be initiated without material showing income had escaped assessment. The Court held that mere allegations of circuitous transactions were insufficient. The key takeaway is that actual escapement is mandatory under the amended law.
The court upheld restoration of appeals where earlier dismissal was without merits due to settlement proceedings. Delay condonation and remand were held valid with no jurisdictional error.
