The Court held that proceedings under Section 74 cannot be sustained without findings of fraud, misstatement, or suppression. The appellate order was modified and refund with interest was directed.
The High Court held that forklifts and cranes with on/off-road capability fall within Section 2(28) and require compliance with registration and tax provisions. Machinery designed for off-highway use but capable of road travel cannot claim exemption.
The Court permitted the petitioner to file a belated appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, subject to Rs. 15,000 payment, directing the appellate authority to hear it on merits.
The Court held that once the assessee files a valid return, the assessment under Section 62 is automatically withdrawn. Even if the return is submitted late, the statutory consequence under Section 62(2) applies. The ruling confirms that the department may still verify liability and issue a fresh notice if short-payment exists.
The Court held that prolonged custody and the documentary nature of the evidence justified bail. The decision highlights that delayed trials in CGST matters should not lead to continued detention.
The High Court held that goods accompanied by a valid e-way bill cannot be seized for non-declaration of destination as an additional place of business. The orders under Section 129 were quashed.
The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that the AO had examined salary and business promotion expenses, making Section 263 revision invalid. It held that when two views are possible, revisional interference is unwarranted.
The Court held that goods moved as stock transfer could not be treated as sale and that technical mistakes in the e-way bill did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside, and the order was quashed.
The Court held that no clause in the contract provides reimbursement for increased GST rates. The writ was dismissed, and the contractor was directed to pursue contractual dispute remedies.
The dealer argued that all purchases supported by Form 38, Form C, and stock registers were properly recorded but overlooked by the Tribunal. The Court found that the assessment order itself accepted turnover and reflected no defects in the books. Because the Tribunal failed to address these grounds, the case was remanded.
