The issue was whether a show cause notice cancelling GST registration can be challenged via writ. The SC held it is not maintainable and allowed adjudication to proceed.
The issue involved large unsecured loans without full supporting evidence. ITAT held that identity and creditworthiness were not properly established and sent the matter back for fresh verification.
The case examined whether one officer can perform dual roles in GST proceedings. The court held that such overlap violates natural justice and set aside the appellate order.
The issue involved restriction of TDS credit due to mismatch between Form 26AS and return. ITAT held that such adjustments require verification and cannot be made under Section 143(1).
The Supreme Court rejected the Revenue’s appeal solely on limitation, holding that the delay explanation was inadequate. The ruling highlights strict adherence to timelines in filing SLPs.
The case examined validity of a show cause notice covering several years. The court held that GST law requires year-wise assessment, making such consolidated notices invalid.
The Court held that the present case was identical to an earlier ruling and could not be distinguished. It disposed of the appeal in line with the prior judgment, ensuring consistency in decisions.
The Court held that invocation of the bank guarantee after expiry of the defect liability period was arbitrary. It ruled that absence of defects and delay invalidated the encashment action.
The Court held that the secured creditor’s rights were limited to project receivables and did not extend to management or contractual control. It ruled that the creditor could not challenge termination of the contract. The decision clarifies limits of secured creditor rights under IBC and SARFAESI.
The Court addressed whether additional remuneration taxed at the firm level can be taxed again in the hands of the partner. It directed CBDT to clarify the issue and stayed recovery proceedings. The ruling highlights concerns over potential double taxation.
