The Court rejected the revenue’s plea that the dealer caused delay in refund processing. Interest was held payable under Sections 38 and 42 of the DVAT Act.
The Court set aside the detention order and notice after finding they were not issued and communicated within the mandatory seven-day period under Section 129, rendering the action unsustainable.
The Court held that goods accompanied by valid documents cannot be detained under Section 129 merely due to alleged misclassification, leaving such issues to assessment proceedings.
Refusing to condone delay, the Court ruled that vague personal difficulties and incorrect assumptions about remedies do not meet the threshold of sufficient cause, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court set aside retrospective GST registration cancellation after finding that the show cause notice failed to specify the default period or dues, violating natural justice.
The decision limits tax exposure by holding that unexplained cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed on an estimated profit basis when business records are accepted.
Relying on precedents including rulings of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that extrapolation across years is impermissible. The addition was struck down as being based on assumption rather than evidence.
The Tribunal held that once business receipts are taxed on an estimated basis, separate additions for payments and assets from the same receipts are impermissible. Only a net-profit estimation was sustained, deleting multiple cascading additions.
The tribunal accepted that allotment confers enforceable capital rights capable of transfer. The ruling clarifies that proceeds from such transfers must be assessed under capital gains, not deemed income.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of interest for non-deduction of TDS cannot be automatic when paid to an NBFC. The Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has offered the income to tax.
