The CESTAT Chennai held that reassessment of a Bill of Entry can be permitted under Section 149 where excess CVD was paid due to failure to claim an exemption notification. The Tribunal directed customs authorities to reconsider the refund claim after reassessment instead of rejecting it on procedural grounds.
CESTAT Chennai held that CENVAT credit on outward transportation and insurance services cannot be denied where goods are sold on FOR destination basis and the buyer’s premises is the place of removal. The Tribunal relied on earlier Larger Bench and Supreme Court-based principles for determining admissibility of credit.
The Nagpur ITAT held that exemption under Section 54B requires evidence of active agricultural operations and not merely agricultural classification in revenue records. The assessee’s failure to produce supporting evidence led to denial of exemption.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging GST registration cancellation after noting the availability of an appellate remedy before the GST Tribunal. The Court held that the petitioner could not bypass the statutory appeal mechanism.
The Karnataka High Court held that retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act extended the time limit for availing ITC where returns were filed before 30 November 2021.
The Court ruled that furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the alleged short-paid GST amount was adequate for interim release of the consignment. DGGI’s plea to include the penalty component in the guarantee amount was rejected.
ITAT Mumbai held that the reassessment notice issued on 24.07.2022 was time-barred under the Supreme Court ruling in Rajeev Bansal. The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash summons issued under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, holding that allegations of mala fide conduct were unsupported by evidence. The Court ruled that statutory investigation based on a Tax Evasion Petition could not be invalidated on speculative claims.
The Bombay High Court deferred the bank’s proposed action to take physical possession of secured assets after noting that the DRAT Chairperson was unavailable to hear the petitioners’ restoration applications. The Court granted limited interim protection until 20 May 2026.
The Ahmedabad ITAT held that goodwill arising from a High Court-approved amalgamation qualified as an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii). The Tribunal followed earlier decisions in the assessee’s own case.
