Delhi High Court held that failure on the part of Objection Hearing Authority (OHA) to pass an order doesn’t automatically result in allowing refund u/s. 42(1) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004.
Delhi High Court held that non-scheduled (passenger services) as defined under clause (b) of explanation to Condition no. 104 of notification no. 21/2022-CUS as amended by notification no. 61/2007-CUS doesn-t include providing air transport services to public at large on payment of published tariff.
Patna High Court held that the Reimbursement of Seignorage Charge and Labour Cess on construction and maintenance of Akauna Path to Yogapur Path work done under NABARD should be challenged before the appropriate forum.
Delhi High Court held that debarment of Haj Group Operator (HGO) was based on Income Tax Return which was later on rectified. Accordingly unsustainable order of blacklisting would not operate so as to render the petitioner disqualified in case it was to apply for enlistment as an HGO in the future years.
CESTAT Delhi held that interest free advances received by the foreign exporter not includible in the value of goods supplied to India when advances are for expansion of production facility and future production activity.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that appellant is duly entitled for interest on refund of pre-deposit amount @6% from the date of deposit of pre-deposit till the date of refund in a case where the Tribunal has finally passed the final order setting aside the demand.
Madras High Court directed the petitioner to submit an additional reply to the Show Cause Notice issued under section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.
Calcutta High Court held that petitioner not allowed to change the classification of Tariff Heading for availing lower rate of Tariff under GST regime as petitioner never contested classification under Central Excise Tariff Act and enjoyed Duty Drawback accordingly.
Delhi High Court held that the applicant is established to be a mastermind of the whole operation only on the basis of statements under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Also period of incarceration and delay in investigation justifies a prima facie release of applicant on bail.
Bombay High Court held that provisions of section 21 of the Chartered Accountant Act 1949 duly complied and respondent found guilty. Accordingly held that order of reprimand of the respondent will serve th e ends of justice.
