The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order because the appeal was dismissed on limitation without properly examining delay condonation grounds. It held that non-speaking orders passed without adequate hearing violate principles of natural justice and require fresh adjudication.
The CCPA held that failure to disclose the specific courses undertaken by successful UPSC candidates amounted to misleading advertisement and a violation of consumer rights, warranting a higher penalty as a repeat offence.
The appellate authority held that the advance ruling was declared non-maintainable due to absence of invoices and supporting records. As fresh documents were produced in appeal, the matter was remanded for fresh examination on merits.
The Authority held that consultancy services for a fire station and parking project were pure services provided to a local authority. Since they relate to municipal functions under Article 243W, the supply was declared GST-exempt.
The GST Appellate Tribunal held that Section 171 does not apply where the housing project began and was executed fully after GST implementation. It accepted the DGAPs finding of no profiteering and closed proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the DGAP report after verifying that the developer passed on ITC benefits exceeding the computed liability. With the balance amount paid, no further action was required under Section 171 of the CGST Act.
The Court held that once arrears for later years were settled under the Settlement Act, no outstanding demand survived. Adjusting earlier refunds against settled dues was declared illegal and without authority of law.
The Court quashed the denial of GST refund, holding that the appellate authority failed to properly analyse whether services to the parent company qualified as export or intermediary services. Matter remanded for fresh decision.
The Court held that the product fits within the specific “fruit drink” entry under UPVAT and cannot be taxed under the residuary entry at 12.5%. Regulatory food classification was deemed irrelevant for VAT purposes.
The Supreme Court held that dismissal of a special leave petition in limine does not result in merger of the High Court judgment. A review petition before the High Court remains maintainable unless leave to appeal has been granted.
