The issue involved challenge to provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court refused to interfere, holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedy of filing objections under Rule 159(5).
The Court held that cancellation based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice violates natural justice. The order was set aside and registration restored with liberty for fresh proceedings.
The court ruled that cancellation was unsustainable where authorities ignored documents and passed non-speaking orders. It emphasized that decisions must reflect application of mind and proper evaluation of evidence.
The tribunal permitted set-off of interest paid against interest earned, finding both were intrinsically linked to business activities. It directed that only net impact be adjusted in capital work-in-progress.
The ruling held that amended provisions cannot be used to reopen cases already settled by final judgments. It emphasizes that retrospective fiscal laws must respect judicial finality and constitutional safeguards.
The authority held that mixtures of natural and synthetic rubber fall under 40028090 as they exclude substances under Chapter Note 5(A). Exemption applies subject to compliance with origin rules.
The Authority ruled that a refined plant extract used for treating respiratory conditions qualifies as a medicament, not a vegetable extract. Classification was based on its therapeutic use and advanced processing, denying concessional duty.
The issue was whether a taxpayer could seek revocation after missing the prescribed timeline due to portal restrictions. The Court allowed manual filing and directed authorities to consider the application on merits.
The issue was mismatch between Section 74 mentioned in summary and penalty imposed under Section 73. The Court allowed rectification by approaching the proper officer without examining merits.
The issue was whether tax demand can exceed the amount and scope mentioned in the show cause notice. The Court held that such excess demand violates Section 75(7) and directed rectification through proper procedure.
