The issue was whether mark-to-market gains on forward contracts are taxable before maturity. The Court held that such gains are not taxable as they are not real income until actually realized.
The issue was whether failure to refund investor funds is time-barred. The Court held it is a continuing offence, rejecting the limitation defence. The key takeaway is that non-compliance persists until repayment is made.
The Court quashed the notice as it was based on a factually incorrect audit premise and lacked specific details. It held that vague notices violate natural justice and cannot sustain tax demands.
The judgment reiterates that additions under Section 68 cannot be based on presumptions or suspicion without supporting evidence. It held that the Assessing Officer must bring material on record before rejecting explanations.
The Court held that cash cannot be seized under GST provisions as it is excluded from the definition of “goods” and was not shown to be relevant to any proceedings. It directed immediate return of the seized amount, emphasizing limits on seizure powers.
Interest on customs refund was not automatic and depends on whether there was delay in processing attributable to the department, while granting relief in cases where reassessment and refund were delayed and denying it where refunds were issued within the statutory period.
The Court found that the petitioner was not given adequate time or opportunity to respond. It ruled that rejection without following procedural safeguards is invalid. The decision reinforces adherence to due process.
The Court granted bail noting that allegations were primarily based on documentary evidence and investigation was largely complete. It held that further custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The Court set aside the GST order as it was issued before the date fixed for hearing, denying the petitioner an opportunity to respond. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines.
The Court declined to interfere with the GST demand order as the petitioner had not availed the appellate remedy. It emphasized that disputes relating to adjudication must be addressed through statutory channels. The ruling reinforces the primacy of appellate remedies in tax matters.
