The High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal despite delay after noting that the assessment order was served through deemed service on the common portal. The appeal must be filed with a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
CESTAT Bangalore held that revocation of a Customs Broker license is a harsh penalty that requires clear proof of involvement in fraud. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal set aside the license revocation but retained a penalty.
The Gauhati High Court held that the second FIR disclosed additional and distinct offences beyond the earlier complaint. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed under the test of sameness.
The Tribunal ruled that a bona fide technical mistake in selecting the wrong section code while applying for registration cannot lead to rejection of the application. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) for reconsideration on merits.
The Madras High Court quashed the rejection of a condonation application, holding that the delay in filing Form 10B had a reasonable explanation. The Court directed reconsideration of exemption under Section 11.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST order passed after the assessee failed to reply to a show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The court allowed reconsideration subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax.
The Tribunal found that the importer had sought first-check examination and the Chartered Engineers report confirmed the declared description of goods. As a result, allegations of mis-declaration and consequent penalties were held unsustainable.
The High Court held that there was no violation of natural justice because the taxpayer’s reply to the show cause notice was referred to and considered in the assessment order. The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.
CESTAT Delhi held that job work processes undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. Since the activity could not simultaneously be treated as an exempted service, the Cenvat demand was set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that a trust registered under Section 10(23C)(iv) was required to file Form 10BB instead of Form 10B. The Tribunal restored exemption after finding that denial by CPC under Section 143(1) was incorrect.
