The Calcutta High Court condoned a 430-day delay after holding that the death of the assessee’s authorized representative constituted sufficient cause in the faceless tax regime. The Court set aside the ITAT’s dismissal order and restored the appeal for adjudication on merits.
High Court held that customs regulations require verification through reliable documents and data, not mandatory physical inspection of a client’s premises.
The issue involved recovery despite statutory pre-deposit under GST law. The Court held that once pre-deposit is made, further recovery must stop and excess amounts should be refunded.
The case involved denial of GST refund due to unclear documentation on shipping details. The Court held that the assessee must be given a chance to submit proper evidence and ordered fresh adjudication.
The issue involved denial of access to seized documents relied upon in a GST notice. The Court held that taxpayers must be given inspection and copies of relied documents before responding.
Court found that the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause applied. Since the tax effect was below Rs.2 crores and no valid exception was demonstrated, the Court held that there was no reason to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application were dismissed.
The Court held that rejection of NBFC registration surrender solely due to meeting PBC was unsustainable without giving an opportunity of hearing. RBI was directed to reconsider the application afresh.
The court held that interest cannot be claimed where delay in receiving rent was caused by the landlord’s own inaction. Procedural compliance for withdrawal was found essential.
The issue concerned overlap of deductions under Sections 80-IA and 80HHC. The Court held that 80HHC profits cannot be reduced by 80-IA deduction, ensuring independent computation.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
