The case involved CPC adjustment denying deduction for employees’ PF contribution deposited after statutory due dates. The tribunal ruled that before the Supreme Court’s later decision, the issue was debatable and could not be adjusted under Section 143(1).
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order because verification reports relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the taxpayer. The court held that denying access to such reports violates principles of natural justice and ordered a fresh hearing.
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court ruling after finding that it failed to consider documentary evidence and concurrent findings on possession while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
The court held that although the defendant established title through a court auction purchase, injunction could not be granted as possession on the date of the suit was not proved.
The ITAT Ahmedabad cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication, holding that penalty based on the original order cannot survive once the assessment itself is reopened.
The Tribunal held that approval granted under Section 153D without application of mind was invalid. As a result, search assessments framed under Section 153C for multiple years were quashed.
The Court set aside a GST assessment order based on an ITC mismatch after the taxpayer claimed the seller failed to upload invoice details. Fresh assessment was allowed subject to deposit of 10% of disputed tax.
The court held that when an importer claims that a licence is not required under a notification, authorities must first consider the representation on merits. Customs were directed to provide a hearing and pass a reasoned order before refusing clearance.
The Supreme Court granted respondents three weeks to file a counter affidavit in a case examining guidelines governing police conduct and arrests within court premises.
