The issue was rejection of a rectification application due to delay while ITC was disputed. The Court allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation, emphasizing appellate remedy over technical rejection.
The Court held that the case primarily involved documentary evidence and asset control during liquidation. It granted anticipatory bail, noting custodial interrogation was not necessary.
The court examined whether reopening an assessment based on previously scrutinized facts was valid. It held that reassessment without fresh tangible material amounts to a change of opinion and is without jurisdiction.
The case involved seizure of 1000 grams of suspected ganja at an airport. The Court granted bail considering it as intermediate quantity and noting custody duration and investigation stage.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the prescribed timeline due to portal restrictions. The Court allowed manual filing and directed authorities to consider the application on merits.
The issue was mismatch between Section 74 mentioned in summary and penalty imposed under Section 73. The Court allowed rectification by approaching the proper officer without examining merits.
The issue was whether tax demand can exceed the amount and scope mentioned in the show cause notice. The Court held that such excess demand violates Section 75(7) and directed rectification through proper procedure.
The court refused to entertain a constitutional challenge raised to bypass limitation. It allowed filing of appeal with delay condonation subject to conditions.
The court declined to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) in absence of clear factual basis. It held that disputed facts must be examined through statutory appellate remedies.
The court addressed denial of input tax credit due to mismatch with GSTR-2A and missing invoices. It allowed the taxpayer to seek rectification with supporting documents before the proper officer.
