The Tribunal reinstated the entire disallowance after finding the purchases completely non-genuine. It held that estimation theory cannot apply where transactions are proven to be sham.
The Court held that interest and penalty cannot be imposed when not proposed in the show cause notice, setting aside the assessment and attachment orders.
Tribunal dismisses AO’s addition after assessing evidence, books of accounts, VAT returns, and confirmed ledgers, confirming the transactions’ authenticity.
Court emphasizes procedural compliance in PAN usage, quashing notice and order issued under surrendered PAN and ensuring proper reassessment steps.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court invalidated GST assessments where notices under Rule 142(1A) were not issued before assessment, emphasizing mandatory compliance prior to Oct 2020.
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 found the appellate authority’s rejection of delay condonation mechanical and set aside the cancellation order, allowing revival upon fulfilling conditions.
The Calcutta High Court held that statutory pre-deposit requirements cannot be retrospectively applied to appeals against penalty-only GST orders. The appeal was remanded for consideration without pre-deposit.
The Court held that proceedings under Section 201 were invalid because a binding interim order barred TDS on LTC payments. The ruling confirms that no default arises when deduction is judicially prohibited.
