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.
The Tribunal admitted the voluntary insolvency application after examining financial statements, bank records, and other documents showing continuing default. It held that the application was complete and complied with Section 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
NCLT Mumbai admitted a Section 10 application after finding the company had defaulted on over ₹65 crore in financial and operational debt and was unable to repay its liabilities.
NCLT Chandigarh held that successive written acknowledgments by the borrower extended the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The tribunal admitted the Section 7 IBC petition as it was filed within the extended limitation period.
The Court issued notice in a plea to quash criminal proceedings where the applicant argued that alleged cash payments exceeding ₹2 lakh should first be examined under Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act.
The Court refused to review its earlier ruling that retrospective GST cancellation was invalid due to lack of reasons in the show cause notice and absence of prior notice to the taxpayer.
The Gauhati High Court held that when a taxpayer clears outstanding tax, interest, and late fees and files pending returns, authorities must consider restoration of GST registration under Rule 22(4).
