NCLAT Chennai held that appeal as prescribed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of dismissal of contempt petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, company appeals are dismissed.
The dispute involved non-implementation of an accepted adjudication order for release of personal jewellery. The Court held that Customs was bound to act on its own order and directed unconditional release.
The court refused to revive a customs appeal dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit, holding that repeated attempts after long delays cannot be entertained once higher courts have rejected identical pleas.
The dispute concerned how aggregate average advances should be computed for bad debt provisions. The Court held that cumulative month-end outstanding advances, not incremental lending, must be used.
The Court declined to rule on the validity of time-extension notifications pending Supreme Court scrutiny and directed the taxpayer to pursue a statutory appeal. The key takeaway is that adjudication orders passed after replies can be tested in appeal, with limitation protection granted.
Karnataka High Court held that revision petition u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act wrongly dismissed by holing that delay in filing revision petition cannot be condoned since the revisional authority already condoned the delay.
The issue was whether delay in approaching the Court was fatal despite exceptional facts. The Court ruled that restoration was warranted due to prolonged tribunal proceedings and late service.
Delhi High Court declined to interfere with an ex parte GST demand order but permitted a delayed statutory appeal. Ruling allows appeal to be heard on merits despite limitation, citing sufficient cause.
The Court permitted deposit of outstanding motor vehicle tax and additional tax where arrears were reflected on the portal without issuing a demand notice. The key takeaway is that authorities must consider waiver requests after tax payment.
The Delhi High Court held that a draft assessment order issued against a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid. Such proceedings suffer from a substantive jurisdictional defect.
