Where the Commissioner of Customs issued a Public Notice directing Container Freight Stations (CFSs) not to collect GST on auction sales of uncleared cargo under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, such notice was without jurisdiction, as the levy of GST was governed by the CGST Act and not by the Customs authorities.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a GST cancellation order, ruling that the retrospective cancellation date was invalid as the show-cause notice failed to explicitly propose it.
Know about TAN under Section 203A of the Income Tax Act—its purpose, applicability, application process, forms, penalties, and key rules for TDS/TCS deductors and collectors in India.
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) could not be denied merely because commercial invoices did not carry the endorsement required under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, when all other substantive requirements were satisfied.
Loss of ₹7.66 Crore was allowable as bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii), recognising the loss as a genuine business loss arising from NSEL’s operational suspension.
Delhi High Court permitted petitioners to seek anticipatory bail under Cr.P.C. Section 438 for CGST offences, citing the Supreme Court’s clarification in the Radhika Agarwal case. The interim protection was extended for two weeks to allow the petitioners to apply for bail.
Understand the provisions of tax audit under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, including its objectives, applicability, prescribed forms, due dates, and penalties for non-compliance by businesses and professionals.
Victimology focuses on victim rights and rehabilitation under CrPC/BNSS and NALSA. It leverages AI and digital platforms for support, compensation (CVCF), and restorative justice.
Court directed a fresh assessment, holding that flavoured milk is correctly classified as milk with added sugar (Entry 0402). This classification takes precedence over general beverage entry, ensuring lower 5% GST rate applies.
Supreme Court ruled that High Court erred by dismissing Revenue’s appeal based only on old precedent without examining current facts. Judgment emphasizes that new AUDA tests must be applied to specific factual situation of Development Authority.
