The tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed without direct evidence connecting the appellant to alleged overvalued exports. Mere suspicion and assumptions were found insufficient.
The Tribunal set aside the assessment after noting that books of accounts were not produced and required reconsideration. It directed a fresh decision with proper opportunity, emphasizing procedural fairness.
The case addressed whether a second GST refund application is maintainable when a prior claim covered the same period. The Court held that no statutory bar exists under Section 54(1), and rejection on technical grounds was invalid.
The Court held that withdrawal of promised electricity duty exemption after investment violates promissory estoppel. Key takeaway: State cannot defeat vested rights created by clear policy assurances.
The High Court allowed delay in filing GST appeal due to repeated family bereavements beyond the taxpayer’s control. Key takeaway: genuine hardship can justify condonation and enable appeal on merits.
Court held that penalty under Section 270A cannot apply where assessed income does not exceed processed income. Key takeaway: statutory conditions must be strictly met.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had adequately explained the source of cash deposits with supporting evidence. Addition under Section 69A was deleted as the AO failed to rebut the explanation.
The tribunal ruled that reliance only on an investigation report without independent evidence cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Additions under Section 68 and commission were deleted.
The Tribunal held that industrial tariff charged by electricity boards is the correct benchmark for CPP transactions. It rejected the use of generator procurement rates adopted by the TPO.
SC allowed classification of Odomos under HSN 38089191 to stand, holding that market identity and consumer understanding supported its treatment as a mosquito repellent.
