The court examined whether reassessment beyond six years was valid without identifying an asset. It held that the absence of any asset in recorded reasons makes extended limitation inapplicable. The key takeaway is that jurisdictional conditions must be strictly satisfied for reopening beyond six years.
The Tribunal held that tax demand cannot be confirmed under a category not proposed in the show cause notice. It ruled that such reclassification violates settled legal principles and renders the demand invalid.
The Court held that the appellant was not given a chance to contest the legality of seizure. It ruled that such challenge must be permitted in confiscation proceedings to ensure fair hearing.
The issue involved denial of representation through counsel during GST proceedings. The Court held that personal appearance cannot be insisted upon when law permits authorised representation.
The tribunal examined whether imported rubber is liable to additional duty equivalent to cess. It upheld the levy by following earlier decisions and the appellant’s own case. The key takeaway is that consistent precedents were applied to sustain the demand.
The court examined whether road tax and penalties could be demanded for issuing an NOC. It held that such charges are not applicable when only an NOC is sought. The key takeaway is that NOC issuance cannot be linked to tax liabilities meant for registration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer went beyond revisionary directions by including additional issues. It ruled that such excess additions were invalid and liable to be deleted.
The court examined whether confiscation under GST law can be ordered without hearing the affected party. It held that absence of personal hearing violates statutory requirements, making the order invalid.
The tribunal examined whether sales receipts can be treated as unexplained cash credits. It held that documented sales recorded in books cannot be taxed under Section 68.
The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highlights that absence of pleadings can lead to automatic rejection of grounds.
