The Court ruled that an order passed over three years after the statutory deadline under Section 153(5) was without jurisdiction and void. It held that failure to act within the prescribed period renders the appellate order final and enforceable.
Karthik Papers Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (CESTAT Delhi) The appeal was filed by Shree Karthik Papers Limited against the portion of the order dated 16.09.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, which restored the assessment on a turnover of ₹1,51,28,219 as inter-State sales and restored penalty of ₹25,64,365. […]
P P Jewellers & Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi) The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, examined multiple appeals challenging an order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur. The Commissioner had confiscated seized silver jewellery, confirmed a customs duty demand of ₹1,44,04,165 along […]
Sanand Properties P. Ltd. Vs Jt. Commr. of I.T. Range 6 And Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Reopening of Assessment Valid Because Survey Unearthed Fresh Tangible Material: SC; 35% Share Taxable as Revenue Since Expenses Never Reduced Entitlement: SC; Receipts Linked to Gross Sales Held Taxable as Business Income, Not Profit Share; Assessment Reopening Sustained […]
The Tribunal held that rebate under section 87A could not be denied merely because LTCG exceeded Rs.1 lakh. It ruled that the relevant consideration was the tax computed on such gains, leading to deletion of the adjustment made under section 143(1).
CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that Cenvat Credit cannot be retained when based on invoices issued by fake or non-existent suppliers. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to verify supplier identity as required under Rule 7(2).
The High Court quashed an Order-in-Original after finding that the petitioner alleged lack of notice and denial of hearing. It restored the proceedings for fresh consideration on merits.
The Madras High Court directed fresh consideration of an OBC-NCL certificate application in light of the Supreme Court’s clarification on income computation. It emphasized that the relevant guidelines must be considered while deciding eligibility.
The Tribunal held that penalties for abetment could not survive when the actual importer was neither identified nor proceeded against. The absence of a principal offender undermined the charge under Section 112(a).
The Tribunal held that while failures in supervision and due diligence were established, there was no conclusive proof of conscious involvement in fraudulent drawback exports. It upheld forfeiture of security deposit without revoking the licence.
