The court halted enforcement of a GST demand after finding that seized documents and a computer were not returned, denying a fair hearing and effective defence.
The High Court held that continued detention was unnecessary after joint interrogation. Bail was directed following a short extension for further investigation.
Addition under Section 68 cannot be sustained merely due to high share premium when investors are identifiable, traceable, and supported by audited financial records.
The High Court quashed both adjudication and appellate orders after finding that GST return data was not examined. The matter was remanded for fresh decision with opportunity of hearing.
The court held that an appeal refiled within the CBIC amnesty period could not be dismissed on limitation. The appellate order was set aside and the appeal restored for fresh consideration.
The court held that amounts credited due to a clerical RTGS error cannot be retained or recovered as tax dues when they do not belong to the account holder. Recovery provisions were ruled inapplicable, and the bank was directed to refund the money to the remitter.
The Court held that the extended limitation period under Section 74 was prima facie invoked only for specific ITC allegations and not for all demands. Recovery was stayed as most claims appeared to fall outside the extended period.
The court accepted medical treatment as an explanation for failure to file appeal in time but found it insufficient without conditions. The ruling underscores that relief can be granted while balancing procedural discipline through costs.
The High Court set aside dismissal of a GST appeal rejected for late filing of a certified copy. The ruling holds that timely online filing should not be defeated by hyper-technical objections.
The issue was whether retention money credited and subjected to TDS accrued as income. The Court held that retention money is contingent on contract completion and not taxable until the right to receive crystallises.
