The issue was whether the Assessing Officer could alter income despite a valid APA and modified return. The Court held that without an adverse TPO audit or APA cancellation, reassessment adjustments were without jurisdiction.
The dispute centered on whether a reassessment notice was time-barred and sanctioned by the correct authority. The Tribunal held that the reply period under section 148A must be excluded, bringing the notice within three years and validating the sanction.
The authority examined whether plastic filter tips used with automated instruments were machine parts and held they were disposable consumables, classifiable as articles of plastic under CTH 39269099.
The authority held that molecular biology kits containing nucleic acids are chemically defined compounds classifiable under Chapter 29, rejecting classification as laboratory reagents under Chapter 38.
The Authority ruled on correct tariff headings for key materials used in lithium-ion cell manufacturing. The decision brings clarity and certainty on customs classification.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act not sustained in absence of proof of mens rea since establishing mens-rea is also a prerequisite to attribute attempt. Accordingly, penalty imposed is deleted.
Karnataka High Court held that order invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules and blocking of Electronic Credit ledger without granting pre-decisional hearing and passing of order without containing independent or cogent reasons is impermissible in law. Accordingly, order quashed.
Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that non-filling of registration number in Part-B in e-way bill is curable defect and the same would not invalidate or render illegal the e-way bill. Accordingly, levy of penalty u/s. 129 of the KGST Act is not tenable in law.
The Delhi High Court directed fresh adjudication after holding that denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond renders the GST demand unsustainable, while keeping the notification validity issue open.
