The Court found no separate evidence linking the employee to wrongdoing beyond what was considered for the employer. It ruled that penalty cannot be sustained without independent justification.
The Tribunal held that processes like washing, crushing, and sizing converted ore into concentrate under deemed manufacture provisions. As a result, exemption meant for ores was denied.
The Tribunal held that MMR cannot be applied where income is modest and statutory conditions are not met. It directed recomputation without applying higher tax rates.
The Tribunal held that appeals against liquidator decisions must be filed within 14 days. It ruled that delays beyond this period cannot be condoned.
The Court held that rejecting an appeal for wrong jurisdiction without proper mechanism was a mistake. It restored the appeal and directed its transmission to the correct authority.
The Tribunal held that all resolution plans were rightly rejected as they offered values below liquidation value. It emphasized that the CoC’s commercial judgment, based on financial viability, cannot be interfered with unless statutory provisions are violated. The ruling reinforces that business decisions of the CoC are paramount in insolvency proceedings.
The court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue without considering the taxpayer’s objections. Authorities must decide representations before enforcing attachment.
The Tribunal held that member-based receipts may be exempt under the principle of mutuality. The matter was remanded to verify whether contributors and beneficiaries are identical.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to receipt of proceeds of crime under PMLA. It set aside the attachment, holding that mere suspicion without proof cannot justify action.
The Tribunal confirmed liability of directors under Section 42 based on their role in managing the company. It found no error in holding them responsible. Key takeaway: managerial control establishes accountability.
