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.
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.
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.
Karnataka High Court held that a reassessment notice issued on 7 May 2024 for AY 2017–18 was beyond six-year limitation period under Section 149 of Income Tax Act and therefore invalid.
ITAT Chennai set aside the rejection of an 80G registration application, holding that the prescribed timelines are directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to process the delayed application on its merits under the amended law.
