The High Court held that goods accompanied by a valid e-way bill cannot be seized for non-declaration of destination as an additional place of business. The orders under Section 129 were quashed.
The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that the AO had examined salary and business promotion expenses, making Section 263 revision invalid. It held that when two views are possible, revisional interference is unwarranted.
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid since notices and the final order were issued in the name of a dead assessee despite the Department being informed. Key takeaway: assessments against deceased persons are void ab initio.
The Court held that goods moved as stock transfer could not be treated as sale and that technical mistakes in the e-way bill did not indicate tax evasion. The penalty under Section 129(3) was set aside, and the order was quashed.
The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s imposition of ₹30,000 was contrary to Section 272A(1)(d), which permits only ₹10,000 per statutory default. As only one true default existed, the excess penalty was deleted. Key takeaway: penalty must be grounded strictly in statutory authority, not administrative repetition.
The Court held that no clause in the contract provides reimbursement for increased GST rates. The writ was dismissed, and the contractor was directed to pursue contractual dispute remedies.
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had considered the alleged violations and given reasons for lifting the suspension. With a fresh suspension issued during the appeal, the Tribunal held the matter to be infructuous and dismissed it.
Additions for alleged on-money payments were disallowed because the evidence relied on by authorities contained errors and lacked authenticity. The decision highlights the need for corroborated, primary evidence in tax proceedings.
The Tribunal held that discrepancies between statements and Bills of Entry cannot justify rejecting genuine import documents. Confiscation was overturned as the Bills of Entry were improperly disregarded.
The dealer argued that all purchases supported by Form 38, Form C, and stock registers were properly recorded but overlooked by the Tribunal. The Court found that the assessment order itself accepted turnover and reflected no defects in the books. Because the Tribunal failed to address these grounds, the case was remanded.
