The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petitions. This made the assessee eligible under the 2024 DTVSV Scheme.
The Court held that an employee must be given access to documents relied upon for dismissal, including the Police Verification Report. It directed the department to furnish the report while keeping the merits of termination open.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail in a GST fraud case, noting that the allegations were primarily supported by documentary and digital evidence already seized. Custodial interrogation was found unnecessary.
The High Court upheld rejection of a tender bid due to non-submission of EMD, ruling that mere assembly of purchased components did not qualify as manufacturing. The petitioner was not entitled to MSME exemption.
The High Court quashed the rejection of a university’s Section 10(46) application because no opportunity of hearing was granted. It held that prior exemptions under other provisions do not bar independent consideration.
The High Court dismissed Revenue appeals for AY 2006-07 to 2011-12, holding that its earlier decisions on treaty interpretation squarely applied. It ruled that the Tribunal correctly relied on binding precedents, leaving no ground for interference.
he High Court held that parallel adjudicatory proceedings under GST are barred when one authority has already initiated action on the same subject matter. It directed Central and State authorities to coordinate in line with Supreme Court guidelines to avoid duplication.
The Court directed release of seized areca nuts upon deposit of Rs.5.23 lakh, noting the goods were perishable and ownership was undisputed. The deposit will abide by the outcome of the pending writ petition.
The High Court denied bail, citing the applicant’s significant and instrumental role in the alleged bribery conspiracy. Prior rejection and gravity of offence weighed against release.
The Tribunal remanded the disallowance of PF and ESI contributions to the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Checkmate Services. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to ensure consistent adjudication.
