The court examined whether an advocate involved in filing GST returns for fake entities should remain in custody. It granted bail, holding that limited compliance involvement and completed investigation justified release.
The Tribunal held that failure to issue a jurisdictional transfer order under Section 127 invalidates the assessment. It ruled that absence of such order renders proceedings void ab initio, irrespective of merits.
The issue was whether an insolvency professional fulfilled due diligence obligations under Section 29A. The Committee held that failure to verify and disclose disqualification of a wilful defaulter invalidated the process. It emphasized that eligibility must be continuously assessed and cannot be ignored at later stages.
The issue was regulatory overlap after asset management services were restricted. The Authority removed a conflicting provision, ensuring compliance and clarity in ship leasing operations.
The issue was the lack of a unified process for rights issues in IFSCs. The Authority introduced a detailed framework mandating disclosures, timelines, and compliance standards.
Madras High Court held that section 76 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not applicable since GST component is already remitted by GAIL [transmission vertical]. Accordingly, provisions of section 76 of CGST cannot be invoked. Hence, present petition is allowed.
CESTAT Allahabad held that electrical repair services provided to governmental entities is exempt from payment of service tax vide notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
The case examined whether Section 42 was violated in a private placement. The authority ruled there was no substantive breach and replaced the penalty with a nominal fine for a procedural lapse.
The case addressed delayed filing of return of allotment under Section 42(9). The authority reduced the penalty after recognizing a government circular that excluded part of the delay period.
The authority found non-compliance with Section 42(6) due to absence of a separate bank account. It held that such violation attracts penalty under Section 42(10).
