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 issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The issue involved taxing property value as unexplained investment without prior notice. The Court held that absence of a show cause notice under Section 69 violated principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of the order.
Bombay High Court held that import of cosmetic goods without Central Drugs Standard Control Organization license are considered prohibited goods hence the same are liable to be confiscated even if the same were meant for re-export.
The Court upheld rejection of condonation where delay exceeded 365 days under CBDT Circular. It clarified that Commissioners lack authority beyond this limit but relief may be sought from CBDT.
The Court set aside rejection of registration based solely on absence of an irrevocability or dissolution clause. It clarified that such conditions are not prescribed under law and cannot be imposed by authorities.
The Court halted GST proceedings questioning mandatory 1/3rd land deduction. It held that jurisdiction is doubtful as the underlying notification has been challenged as ultra vires.
The High Court noted that large penalties were imposed on corporate entities while the individual accused faced only a limited penalty, making the restriction on travel unjustified.
The Court emphasized that revisionary powers under Section 264 are broad and intended to correct mistakes causing injustice to taxpayers. Authorities must examine the claim on merits rather than dismiss it on technical grounds.
