The issue was whether Central GST could continue proceedings when State GST had already initiated action on the same issue. The High Court disposed of the petition by directing authorities to follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines to avoid parallel adjudication.
The issue was whether absence of a default date invalidates an invoice-based demand notice. NCLAT held that Form-4 notices do not require a specific default date and restored the insolvency application.
The issue concerned summons issued during an ongoing enquiry into a complaint. The High Court held that no intervention was required while the enquiry was in progress.
The Court found that intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154(3) were not communicated due to technical reasons. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after a revised audit report was filed.
The Court considered whether ELISA kits qualify as diagnostic items eligible for customs exemption. Pending final adjudication, interim protection was granted with a direction against coercive recovery.
The High Court examined whether sunglasses qualify as spectacles under VAT schedules. It ruled that sunglasses are not covered by the spectacles entry and therefore cannot enjoy the lower tax rate. The key takeaway is that sunglasses must be taxed as residuary goods at 12.5% VAT.
The case examined whether air purifiers qualify as medical devices under a statutory notification. The High Court directed the GST Council to urgently consider lowering or abolishing GST on air purifiers and HEPA filters.
The Court held that an old used gold chain could not be absolutely confiscated by Customs. Both the seized chain and phone were ordered to be released without duty, penalty, or fine.
The High Court noted that the seized bangles were raw gold pieces and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy, ensuring a personal hearing before the appellate authority.
The Tribunal upheld customs reclassification of imported goods from scarves to capes based on HSN notes and expert opinion. The key takeaway is that statutory tariff definitions override market practice.
