The Calcutta High Court addressed a petition by Archana Bazaz seeking the removal of goods seized by the GST department from her godown.
Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order directing release of an imported Maserati car seized by DRI on failure to issue a show-cause notice within time prescribed under section 110 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 as section 110A functions as an interim arrangement to allow release of goods, including perishable or fast-moving items, but does not in any way impede or limit the mandatory time limit in Section 110(2).
In Palfinger Cranes v. Commissioner of Customs, CESTAT Chennai ruled that a company is eligible for a Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund, classifying the failure to endorse invoices as a procedural lapse.
Once the Division Bench had remitted the matter without entertaining the plea of alternative remedy, learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing writ petitions on that ground again; matter remitted for decision on merits.
The Gauhati High Court ruled in Sulochana Devi Lohia v. Union of India that GST authorities must return Rs. 9 lakh and other items seized during an investigation after the probe was completed.
The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of Opasil Pigments and Chemicals, quashing a unilateral decision by tax authorities to recall an order that had previously set aside a penalty.
Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion did not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. Assessee had argued that it would not be appropriate for Banu to participate in Hindu religious rituals, including lighting of a sacred lamp, offering fruits and flowers to the deity and chanting Vedic prayers. Such practices can only be performed by a Hindu, they argued.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Sharmeen Abdul Majid Ansari, an accused in a multi-crore cheating case.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the GST Appellate Authority cannot remand a case back to the Adjudicating Authority, as per Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. The court set aside an order against a law firm.
The Court held that failure to notify authorities via DRC-01B cannot justify action under Sections 73/74 if returns were duly filed and no tax dues remained.
