The appeal involved a legal challenge regarding absence of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal held that failure to adjudicate this issue required fresh consideration and remanded the matter.
The case addressed whether a custodian could be held liable for duty when container contents differed from declared goods. The Tribunal held that without proof of tampered or broken seals, liability under section 45 cannot be imposed.
Calcutta High Court rejects Revenue appeal, ruling CBIC’s ₹1 crore threshold applies where no penalty survives. It upholds that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised without proof of mens rea, affirming Tribunal’s finding of a mere conduit role.
The Tribunal ruled that absence of an irrevocability clause in the trust deed is not sufficient to reject registration. It relied on High Court precedent to set aside the order. The decision protects trusts from technical rejection.
The case involved denial of exemption on petroleum-based turnover due to missing evidence. The Court held that the matter should be reconsidered after giving the assessee an opportunity to submit supporting documents.
Applying the computation method laid down in Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal found the notice was issued late. The ruling confirms that delayed notices are void even with extended timelines.
The case involved issuance of notice only through the portal after cancellation of registration. The Court held that absence of physical service violated natural justice and invalidated the order.
The ruling held that telecom voice termination services do not constitute royalty as no secret process or intellectual property is involved. Such receipts are treated as business profits and are not taxable in India without a permanent establishment.
The case questions validity of time-extension notifications allegedly issued without GST Council approval. The Court found arguable issues and granted interim protection against enforcement.
The issue involved levy of late fees on TDS returns processed before statutory amendment. The Tribunal held that absence of enabling provision made such levy invalid and unsustainable.
