Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Prior to the amendment of section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act effective from 16.08.2024, the Customs Act provisions on interest, offences and penalties did not apply to IGST leviable under section 3(7). Applying the Bombay HC rulings in A.R. Sulphonates and Mahindra & Mahindra, the Tribunal held that interest, redemption fine and penalty for the period governed by the unamended provision were without authority of law. The impugned order was therefore set aside to that extent. The confirmation and recovery of IGST itself was not disturbed and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.