The Court examined whether the stringent twin conditions for bail under the PMLA applied to a woman accused in a money laundering case. Holding that the statutory proviso applied, the Court granted bail, emphasizing delayed proceedings and completed investigation.
The High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding that the audit report triggering the demand was issued by an officer lacking statutory authority, indicating a prima facie jurisdictional defect.
The appellate tribunal held that a date discrepancy in the possession notice was a harmless typographical error. It ruled that SARFAESI procedures were substantially complied with and restored the bank’s recovery action.
The addition for alleged cash paid towards property purchase was deleted as the transaction itself stood cancelled. The ruling confirms that cancelled transactions weaken unexplained cash allegations.
The Tribunal ruled that reassessment actions taken by the faceless assessment centre before the notified date were without authority. The final assessment order was therefore held invalid.
The High Court ruled that GST demands including periods before resolution plan approval are legally unsustainable and must be quashed.
The tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming that repeated failure to file written statements despite ample opportunity validates ex-parte recovery orders.
The High Court set aside GST refund rejection orders after noting that Rule 96(10) was omitted without saving pending proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
The High Court held that inability to trace proof of dispatch of hearing notices does not automatically establish denial of personal hearing, especially in ITC fraud cases.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹18.48 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x) after noting that the nature of the property as stock-in-trade was never examined. The matter was remanded to verify whether the asset was business inventory, in which case the provision would not apply.
