Observing that the charge-sheet had been filed and the maximum punishment under Section 132 was five years, the Court granted bail. It relied on Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that prolonged incarceration and documentary evidence weigh in favour of release.
The article explains how high compliance expenses function as an indirect tax on small taxpayers. It highlights that uniform procedural requirements create regressive effects despite progressive statutory tax rates.
Explains how Place of Supply rules decide whether CGST/SGST or IGST applies and which State receives revenue. Highlights its central role in destination-based taxation.
The Calcutta High Court held that amounts already deposited with CGST authorities, not linked to any outstanding liability, must be treated as compliance with statutory pre-deposit. The appellate dismissal for non-compliance was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.
Cross-border consultancy is permitted but subject to strict independence, tax, and foreign exchange compliance norms. Proper structuring and documentation are essential to avoid disciplinary exposure.
The ruling affirms India’s shift from literal interpretation to a substance-based tax regime. It clarifies that transactions existing only on paper, without real business purpose, may face denial of tax benefits under GAAR.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
DGFT directed Regional Authorities to proportionately reduce Average Export Obligation for sectors witnessing over 5% export decline. The relief applies under Para 5.17(a) of FTP 2023 and must be endorsed in EPCG authorisations.
SEBI has directed all regulated entities and their agents to prominently display their registered name and registration number on social media posts related to the securities market. The move aims to distinguish regulated content from unregistered sources and strengthen investor protection.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Thus, penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) cannot be sustained.
