The respondents could not justify why the taxpayer would deposit money without a formal demand. The Court treated the payment as non-voluntary.
Interest earned on funds kept in bank during business setup, when those funds were directly linked to the project, was a capital receipt and not taxable as “income from other sources
The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of penalty due to lack of clarity in the notice.
The Court held that rejecting condonation solely because the assessment year was not mentioned in the circular is unjustified. It ruled that beneficial circulars must be applied liberally to address genuine hardship.
The Court held that denial of input tax credit cannot be sustained without clear findings that suppliers failed to pay tax. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper examination.
The Court set aside the GST demand as the adjudicating authority failed to consider the taxpayer’s submissions. It held that lack of reasoning invalidates the order.
The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Court held that reassessment cannot be initiated after expiry of the limitation period under the old regime. The notice issued after six years was declared invalid.
The Court dismissed the appeal after finding that all issues were already settled by earlier rulings. It held that no new question of law arose and affirmed the Tribunal’s order.
The dispute concerned enforcement of long-pending tax demands without timely action. The Court held that prolonged inaction by authorities and absence of proof of service violated fairness. It quashed the notice while allowing fresh remedies.
