The court examined whether disciplinary findings based on impersonation and unauthorised audits could be reopened. It upheld dismissal, holding that serious integrity breaches justified the penalty and warranted no judicial interference.
The issue involved an ex parte GST assessment raised against an unregistered contractor due to incorrect reliance on WAMIS data. The High Court quashed the demand after the State admitted confusion with another registered person of the same name.
The appellate tribunal upheld approval of a resolution plan, rejecting challenges by operational creditors. The ruling reaffirms that courts cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of the CoC if statutory requirements are met.
The High Court held that when the validity of DRI-issued show cause notices is pending before the Supreme Court, the Tribunal should not remand matters. The correct course is to keep appeals pending and await the apex court’s ruling.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under section 147 fails when the alleged income escapement cited for reopening is accepted and no related addition is made. Without sustaining the original reason for reopening, jurisdiction itself collapses.
The Tribunal upheld the remand of an ex parte assessment where substantial bank deposits were not supported by any documentary evidence. It held that unsupported explanations cannot replace proof, and fresh verification by the Assessing Officer was necessary.
The High Court directed provisional release of seized imported copiers by following its earlier orders in identical matters. The ruling confirms that consistent judicial approach applies where facts and relief sought are substantially similar.
The High Court held that once the GST Appellate Tribunal is functional and timelines are notified, disputes must be pursued through the statutory appeal route, subject to mandatory pre-deposit requirements.
The Tribunal held that section 50C could not be applied where the sale consideration exceeded the value accepted by the stamp authority. A clerical error in departmental data could not justify substitution of sale value.
The Court found a prima facie case that reassessment was initiated without considering detailed explanations already on record. Interim protection was granted pending further hearing.
