The ruling held that bundling premix tea with various tea products is not naturally bundled and therefore constitutes mixed supply. The tax rate applicable is 5%, with the highest-rate principle guiding future cases.
The Delhi High Court held that interest must be paid after refund re-credit was delayed because PMT-03 did not reflect due to technical glitches. The Court directed authorities to process and sanction the interest within two months.
The Commission found that association-issued circulars prescribing uniform commercial terms amounted to price fixing under Section 3(3). The ruling highlights that trade association decisions among similar retailers fall squarely within anti-competitive prohibitions.
The Tribunal refused to condone a 441-day delay, ruling that failure to monitor appeal filing cannot constitute sufficient cause. The case underscores that professional lapses and lack of diligence will not excuse late appeals.
The Court held that adjudication by an officer who had previously conducted an audit on the same issue displayed a pre-disposed mind, setting aside the impugned order for independent reconsideration.
The Court held that a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 had lapsed because the statutory one-year validity period had already expired. It ordered de-freezing of the account while allowing show cause proceedings to continue.
The Court noted that the writ petition challenging alleged fraudulent ITC was dismissed but allowed additional time to pursue a statutory appeal. The ruling permits the appeal to be filed without being treated as time-barred.
The Court held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 ceases to operate after one year. As the order had expired, the bank and Sub-Registrar were directed not to restrict transactions.
The Court examined whether rectified refund applications filed after deficiency memos remained within the two-year limit. It held that the authority acted as per prevailing rules and the claim was time-barred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee proved substantial upgrades to a semi-constructed house using bills and contractor records. It allowed the ₹4.05 crore indexed improvement cost, rejecting the AO’s suspicion-based disallowance.
