The Court found that the authority acted solely on a recommendation without independent evaluation. It ruled that such action does not meet the statutory requirement of reason to believe.
The court held that solar power system supplies must follow the statutory 70:30 valuation mechanism, rejecting full 18% taxation. It ruled that separate invoicing does not negate eligibility for concessional treatment.
The Court held that failure to consider a remand report acknowledging agricultural income constituted an apparent error, leading to recall of the earlier judgment and remand for fresh adjudication.
The court examined whether reassessment could be initiated after four years based on existing records. It held that reopening founded on a change of opinion is impermissible, and such reassessment was quashed. The ruling reinforces limits on reassessment powers.
The case involved multiple additions challenged by the revenue after relief was granted to the assessee. The Court held that once the Assessing Officer accepted the claims in remand, no substantial question of law survives.
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The case involved denial of GST refund without following mandatory procedure under Rule 92(3). The Court held that absence of notice and hearing invalidates the rejection and ordered fresh consideration.
The case involved refusal to entertain a delayed GST appeal due to limitation. The Court followed its earlier ruling and directed authorities to hear the appeal on merits subject to statutory deposits.
The case involved delay in filing GST appeal due to death of a key partner managing operations. The Court held that such circumstances constitute sufficient cause and directed the appeal to be heard on merits after statutory compliance.
The case involved cancellation of GST registration and delay in filing appeal due to illness. The Court held that writ jurisdiction can override limitation where sufficient cause is shown and restored the appeal for decision on merits.
