The Tribunal held that documents relating to payments made to suppliers such as TS MARKFED and Sri Venkateshwara Agencies required proper verification. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Mumbai CESTAT set aside a service tax demand after finding that the Show Cause Notice failed to identify the relevant sub-clause under Business Auxiliary Services. The Tribunal held that such vagueness violated principles of natural justice and invalidated the entire proceeding.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging pay stepping-up relief granted to senior employees. The ruling left intact the Rajasthan High Court and CAT orders directing removal of salary anomalies between seniors and juniors.
The Rajasthan High Court upheld CAT Jaipur’s order granting stepping up of pay to senior employees after noting that similar issues had already been decided by the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts. The court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s directions.
The High Court held that further custodial detention was unnecessary where the complaint had already been filed and investigation against the petitioners had substantially concluded. Bail was granted subject to conditions against influencing witnesses.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail after noting that none of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined despite the accused being in custody since May 2025. The Court held that prolonged incarceration pending trial was not justified.
Court reiterated that gravity of economic offences alone is insufficient to deny bail in every case. It emphasized that bail remains the rule unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail in multiple GST and VAT-related economic offence cases after noting that investigation and filing of challans were already complete. The Court held that prolonged custody after completion of investigation was not justified.
The High Court granted regular bail in a GST tax evasion case after noting that the evidence was primarily documentary and the complaint had already been filed. The Court also imposed strict conditions to prevent witness influence.
Mumbai ITAT held that CIT(A) cannot dismiss Mechanically an appeal solely on delay grounds without adjudicating the issues raised on merits. Tribunal condoned delay after noting that the assessee’s father had passed away and directed fresh disposal on merits.
