The issue involved limitation for initiating proceedings where no statutory time limit exists. The Court upheld that actions must still be within a reasonable period. The takeaway is that absence of explicit limitation does not permit indefinite action.
Gauhati High Court rules GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B mismatch from clerical errors cannot trigger automatic tax recovery without Rule 88C process; ITC denial for FY 2018-19 invalid due to Section 16(5).
India cuts excise duty on petrol and diesel to offset global oil price surge amid war. Move aims to reduce fuel costs, curb inflation, and protect consumers and businesses.
Solar inverters supplied for solar power projects were eligible for the concessional Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate of 5% as solar inverters constituted an integral component of a solar power-generating system and therefore qualified for the concessional tax rate.
The Court examined whether delay in completing disciplinary inquiry invalidates proceedings. It held that Rule 14(24) timelines are directory and do not automatically nullify proceedings without proof of prejudice.
The Court held that membership cannot be granted where the underlying flats do not exist and are merely refuge areas. It ruled that agreements for such spaces are invalid and cannot confer membership rights, restoring the earlier rejection order.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The case involved an order passed without any reply from the taxpayer to the show cause notice. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. It held that an opportunity must be given when substantial tax recovery has already occurred.
The case involved reopening of assessment based on issues already examined during scrutiny. The Court held that reassessment without new material is invalid. It ruled that reopening on the same facts amounts to impermissible action.
