The court examined whether a third party could seek impleadment in an ongoing competition investigation. It directed the regulator to decide the application swiftly, noting that CCI orders have binding, in rem effect on the entire industry.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
The case examined whether refunds could be blocked on the basis of a subsequent lab report issued without new samples. The court ordered early consideration of representations and possible show cause proceedings.
The issue was whether a non-public servant spouse could be discharged at the threshold in a disproportionate assets case. The court held that properties in the wife’s name and joint holdings raised triable issues of abetment.
The dispute concerned reversal of ITC based solely on mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The High Court held that failure to consider the CBIC Circular prescribing the procedure vitiated the order and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
The dispute concerned rejection of a request to amend a Bill of Entry due to an incorrect invoice number. The court directed fresh consideration after submission of contemporaneous documents, without ruling on merits.
The issue was whether a bank’s empanelled advocate could face criminal trial for an allegedly flawed legal scrutiny report. The High Court held that in the absence of evidence of conspiracy or wrongful gain, prosecution could not continue.
The issue was whether a government-approved valuer could be penalised when Customs did not rely on his valuation. The Tribunal held that penalties are unsustainable without proof of reliance, intent, or collusion.
The issue was whether penalties could be sustained without proper cross-examination of witnesses. The court held that ignoring Section 138B requirements vitiates the adjudication.
The issue was whether a single GST show cause notice could cover several assessment years. The court granted interim protection, staying coercive action pending detailed examination.
