The Court held that cancellation of GST registration through a non-speaking order violates the statutory requirement of recording reasons. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules.
The Court held that the bank could not be penalized under Section 201 for complying with binding judicial directions that prohibited TDS on LTC payments during the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that although foreign LFC reimbursements were ultimately held taxable, the bank could not be treated as an assessee-in-default for complying with a subsisting High Court direction restraining TDS deduction.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits linked to recorded cash sales could not be taxed again under Section 68, as doing so would amount to impermissible double taxation.
The Tribunal held that cash received from members and credited to their accounts could not be treated as unexplained income of the co-operative society under Section 68.
The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer erred in applying a 6% net profit rate without examining comparable cases engaged in the same line of business. The decision highlights the necessity of objective criteria while estimating profits after rejection of books.
The Supreme Court held that a stay on recovery proceedings only suspends enforcement and does not wipe out the obligation to pay interest on excise arrears. The beneficiary of an interim order must restore the successful party to the position it would have occupied otherwise.
The Court held that penal interest could not be imposed after the petitioner had paid the admitted dues and the earlier dismissal order had been recalled. The ruling turned on the specific facts of the case and was declared non-precedential.
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal erred in restoring benami appeals solely on the basis of liberty granted in a later Supreme Court review order. It ruled that statutory limits governing review proceedings must still be satisfied.
The Supreme Court held that final judgments cannot be reviewed merely because the legal position later changes. It ruled that the overruling of an earlier precedent does not satisfy the requirements for review under Order XLVII CPC.
