The Court held that seizure under section 129(3) was unsustainable where the goods were found to belong to the consignor. It ruled that no proceedings could continue against the transporter in the absence of adverse findings.
Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessing Officer examined cash deposits and adopted a permissible view by treating them as sales. Since the issue had been enquired into and two views were possible, revision under Section 263 could not be justified.
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 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 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.
The High Court set aside a tax demand that exceeded the amount stated in the show-cause notice, holding it violative of Section 75(7) of the GST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Court held that authorities failed to conduct basic enquiries before alleging reuse of transport documents. The seizure and appellate orders were quashed as unsustainable.
