ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non prosecution. CIT(A) remains under statutory obligation to dismiss appeal on merits. Accordingly, matter remanded back to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Held that the liability of the corporate guarantor is co-extensive with the principal borrower, and accordingly, both the principal borrower and corporate guarantor are equally liable for the default. Accordingly, CIRP application u/s. 7 of IBC allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
Delhi High Court held that one day’s notice for hearing is completely violative of principles of natural justice. Also held that GST department needs to ensure that reasonably sufficient time is granted for furnishing reply. Thus, afforded 30 days time to file reply to GST SCN.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that questioning jurisdiction and authority of collector of Stamps for market value of property transferred under Income Tax Act not permissible since already accepted by petitioner. Accordingly, writ appeal sans merit is dismissed.
ITAT Hyderabad directed to reconsider claim of concessional tax rate benefit u/s. 115BAA of the Income Tax Act since Form 10-IC filed belatedly but was filed before cut-off date i.e. 30.06.2022 as prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 6/2022. Accordingly, appeal allowed for statistical purpose.
NCLT Cuttack held that time of filing of CIRP application and not time of admission of application has to be considered for requisite threshold amount u/s. 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, GST debit-note and payment done after filing of application cannot be considered.
Supreme Court held that once exports are genuine and fall within the notified category, inadvertent mistakes of procedure cannot be treated as fatal, especially where they are corrected under statutory authority. Thus, appeal allowed. Accordingly, benefit of MEIS allowed.
The Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in UAE. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that this is a fake certificate, this certificate would conclusively prove that the imported goods originated from UAE.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license upheld since Customs House Agent [CHA] violated regulation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as failed to verify importer’s credentials.
