CESTAT Chandigarh held that penalty u/s. 112 not imposable as goods are not held liable for confiscation. Further, penalty cannot be imposed on EOUs for failure to achieve positive NFE.
CESTAT Bangalore held that without any such evidences based on the examination report of live consignment, one cannot extrapolate the same to the past consignments. Accordingly, demand for all the past consignments set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of closed assessment which has reached culmination without any actionable material is unsustainable in law and hence liable to be quashed.
Delhi High Court directed to decide afresh whether imported article i.e. gold coins are classifiable under CTH 7114 1910 or 7118 9000 bearing in mind the findings on the scope of those two entries.
Gujarat High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years in absence of full and true disclosure of material facts is bad in law.
ITAT Chennai held that corpus donations received by the Trust is income of the Trust when the Trust is not entitled for the exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Kerala High Court held that the petitioner should approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for getting permission to correct mistake in Form GSTR-3B.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because an assessee is registered u/s 80G of the Act will not automatically mean that such Trust cannot have any religious purpose and therefore cannot avail benefit of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
Supreme Court held that levy of penalty on the basis of a show cause notice containing a completely erroneous category of service is illegal.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that as the contract is for job-work carried out by the appellant for the service recipient. The same doesn’t fall under the category of Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service and therefore the service tax demand unsustainable.
