The case examined the legality of imposing both late fee and general penalty for the same default. The Court ruled that such overlapping penalties are unjustified and unsustainable. The decision clarifies that only one penal consequence can be applied in such cases.
The case examined whether a statement recorded during search can justify tax additions. The Court held that confession without supporting evidence is insufficient. It reinforces that corroboration is essential for sustaining additions.
Madras High Court held that use of visual identifiers on packaging like fonts, symbols, colours, etc. establishes brandname for GST purpose. However, since there was no suppression of fact invocation of extended period denied.
The Court held that penalty under Section 73 cannot be imposed without justification even where tax liability is admitted. It allowed reconsideration of the issue while confirming liability to pay interest on delayed payment. The ruling emphasizes that penalty is not automatic.
A statutory tax charge d noidt constitute a secured interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) therefore, the Court directed the removal of the TNVAT Department’s attachment over the corporate debtor’s property.
The case addressed an assessment order passed without considering the taxpayer’s response to the show cause notice. The Court quashed the order and allowed fresh adjudication subject to a 50% pre-deposit, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) cures delayed ITC claims for earlier years. The matter was remanded for fresh verification subject to submission of supporting documents.
The issue was whether processed tobacco should be taxed as raw leaf or manufactured product. The court held it as raw tobacco to avoid unequal tax treatment for identical goods.
The Court held that the assessment confirmed without a reply warranted reconsideration. It remanded the case for fresh adjudication upon filing of response and documents.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
