The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271D were invalid as they were imposed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1)(c).
The Court addressed prolonged pendency of a Section 143(1) appeal and directed the appellate authority to decide it within eight weeks, reinforcing timely appellate adjudication.
The ITAT ruled that once profits are estimated under Section 145, further disallowances of salary or commission expenses cannot be made from the same books, emphasizing assessment consistency.
The Tribunal held that once cash received was accepted in assessment without any addition, penalty for alleged violation of Section 269SS could not be sustained.
The case involved a challenge to an assessment order that was later revised under rectification provisions. The Court ruled that once rectified, the original demand ceases to exist and cannot be separately challenged.
Along with merits being covered by precedent, the Court noted a significant delay in re-filing. On both procedural and substantive grounds, the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that marginal delay in filing a GST appeal was sufficiently explained by illness and financial hardship. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for decision on merits.
The High Court addressed the issue of a statutory GST appeal being impossible due to a non-functional tribunal. It held that the appeal may be filed once the Tribunal President takes charge, with statutory protection continuing meanwhile.
The Court examined whether diesel used through service providers could escape VAT liability. It held that in the absence of proof of purchases from registered dealers, VAT was rightly levied.
The Court held that failure to pass a speaking order after remand violates statutory obligations and frustrates appellate remedies, directing authorities to decide the matter within a fixed timeline.
