Madras High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit merely on the basis of certain statement without considering documentary evidence is not justifiable. Accordingly, writ of revenue is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that non-filling of registration number in Part-B in e-way bill is curable defect and the same would not invalidate or render illegal the e-way bill. Accordingly, levy of penalty u/s. 129 of the KGST Act is not tenable in law.
The issue concerned whether an investigating agency could summon a lawyer for actions taken while representing a client. The Court stayed the notice, holding that treating an advocate as a witness for professional duties violates established safeguards.
The Delhi High Court directed fresh adjudication after holding that denial of a reasonable opportunity to respond renders the GST demand unsustainable, while keeping the notification validity issue open.
The High Court held that amended SEZ Rules and a later circular could not be applied retrospectively to confirm GST demand for 2017–18, rendering the order without jurisdiction.
The court declined to examine the merits after noting that a final adjudication order had already been passed. The key takeaway is that the petitioner must pursue the prescribed appellate remedy.
The court addressed seizure of imported textiles alleged to be misclassified and held that goods need not be retained during adjudication. Re-export was permitted on execution of a bond and furnishing of a bank guarantee, safeguarding recovery of differential duty.
Rejecting objections on non-existence of the arbitration clause, the court applied the doctrine of separability. Arbitration was held maintainable despite termination or expiry of the main contract.
The court examined whether a third party could seek impleadment in an ongoing competition investigation. It directed the regulator to decide the application swiftly, noting that CCI orders have binding, in rem effect on the entire industry.
The dispute centered on whether DRP directions allow completion of assessment beyond statutory time limits. The Tribunal clarified that section 144C does not create an independent limitation period. Procedural timelines cannot defeat the mandatory bar under section 153.
