The issue involved denial of a request to summon financial records in a domestic violence proceeding. The Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration after examining ITRs showing actual income.
The case examined whether separate penalties under CGST and SGST were permissible. The Court ruled such imposition unjustified and restricted the penalty to ₹25,000.
The Court set aside cancellation of GST registration as the notice failed to specify the proper officer and lacked legal validity. It held that such defects violate principles of natural justice.
The issue was whether parents-in-law can claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law. The Court held that the law does not include parents-in-law within eligible categories. The key takeaway is that maintenance rights are strictly limited to statutory provisions.
The issue involved cancellation of GST registration without proof of proper service of notice. The Court held the order invalid and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The court held that issuing multiple demand notices for a single adjudication order is improper. It directed issuance of a composite notice to enable a single appeal.
The issue involved penalty despite proper documentation. The Court held that valid invoice and e-way bill establish ownership, making action under Section 129(1)(b) invalid.
The issue involved whether valuation for release should follow invoice value or enhanced value. The Court held that Section 129(1)(a) applies, mandating release based on invoice valuation.
The Court held that failure to address objections regarding sample mismatch vitiates the order. It directed fresh adjudication with proper reasoning.
The Court refused to interfere as the writ petition was filed after completion of reassessment proceedings. It held that factual disputes must be examined through statutory appeal, not writ jurisdiction.
