The issue involved incorrect computation of interest on IGST refunds. The Court held that authorities failed to follow statutory provisions under Section 56. The key takeaway is that interest must be calculated strictly as per law.
The issue involved an ex-parte GST order demanding ITC reversal without proper notice. The Court held that absence of opportunity to respond violated principles of natural justice. The key takeaway is that hearing is mandatory before passing adverse orders.
The issue involved lack of operational GST Tribunal despite its formal constitution. The Court noted that this forces taxpayers to approach the High Court unnecessarily. The key takeaway is that authorities must ensure timely functionality of statutory tribunals.
The issue involved penalty despite proper documentation. The Court held that valid invoice and e-way bill establish ownership, making action under Section 129(1)(b) invalid.
The issue involved whether valuation for release should follow invoice value or enhanced value. The Court held that Section 129(1)(a) applies, mandating release based on invoice valuation.
Retrospective cancellation of registration was held to be invalid as the scheme of Act did not permit cancellation of registration under Section 12AA(3) with retrospective effect in absence of explicit statutory authority.
The Tribunal held that unexplained cash credits must be taxed in the year they are recorded in the books, not when allegedly received. Since the ₹80 lakh was credited in AY 1997–98, the addition under Section 68 was upheld despite claims of earlier receipt.
The Tribunal examined denial of rebate due to technical computation issues. It held that deduction must be granted as income was below ₹7 lakh and statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Tribunal held that the addition based on third-party software data was invalid as the material was not provided to the assessee. Denial of cross-examination was found to violate principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the maintainability of the appeal must be based on the correct tax effect and not erroneous figures in Form 36. Since the actual tax effect was below the CBDT threshold, the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing strict adherence to monetary limits.
