The court upheld ₹50,000 monthly maintenance after finding insufficient evidence of reduced income. It ruled that inability claims must be substantiated and cannot defeat maintenance obligations.
The Court held that appeals filed beyond the maximum four-month period under GST law cannot be condoned. It ruled that limitation provisions must be strictly followed, leaving no scope for invoking the Limitation Act.
The Court held that assessment proceedings delayed by over ten years are unreasonable and invalid. The key takeaway is that authorities must complete adjudication within a reasonable timeframe.
The issue concerned overlap of deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80HHC. The Court held that 80HHC profits cannot be reduced by 80-IA deduction, ensuring independent computation.
The Court held that once GSTAT is operational and timelines are extended, disputes must be pursued through the appellate mechanism. Writ petitions cannot continue when an effective statutory remedy exists.
The Court held that penalty under Section 73 cannot be imposed without justification even where tax liability is admitted. It allowed reconsideration of the issue while confirming liability to pay interest on delayed payment. The ruling emphasizes that penalty is not automatic.
Dispute on ITC mismatch between returns was remitted after ex-parte order, allowing reconciliation upon 10% pre-deposit. Key takeaway: reconciliation issues must be examined with proper hearing.
The court held that a GST circular cannot enforce retrospective application of the 70:30 tax split on solar EPC contracts. It clarified that such application is optional for taxpayers and not mandatory for authorities.
The issue involved stringent deposit conditions imposed while granting bail in cheque dishonour cases. The High Court held such conditions excessive and reduced the requirement to 20% of the cheque amount.
The issue was whether addition based on assumed production yield is valid. The Court held that without supporting evidence, such additions are unsustainable and cannot justify rejection of books.
