CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of shark fins without any evidence that there was an attempt to export the same is not justifiable. Accordingly, order confiscating goods set aside and appeal allowed.
Madras High Court held that date of receipt of copy of order is to be accepted in absence of any contrary evidence by the respondents/ department. Accordingly, dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation not justified. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
Gujarat High Court held that since petitioner has generated Part-A of the E-Way Bill covering all the transport related details, the benefit of the Circular No.64/38/2018-GST is required to be given, hence the penalty amount is reduced.
ITAT Chennai held that passing of an order in the name of dead/ deceased person is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, revisionary order passed by PCIT is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court held that secured creditors have a clear priority over the dues of the State as per Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, clear title must pass to auction purchaser and State cannot be allowed to continue its encumbrance upon secured asset sold.
NCLT Delhi held that CIRP application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code dismissed as the applicant is primarily seeking to recover its dues, rather than facilitating the resolution of the Corporate Debtor, who is solvent and operational.
Karnataka High Court held that the assessment order passed is beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
CESTAT Delhi held that import of essential components constituting an E-Rickshaw in CKD [Complete Knock Down] or SKD [Semi- Knock Down] is rightly classifiable under CTH 8703 9000. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal is dismissed.
Karnataka High Court held that challenge by revenue to the order of remand passed by Tribunal wouldn’t survive for further consideration hence appeal disposed of and question of taxability of software fees under DTAA not answered.
NCLT Mumbai held that the claims of electricity department stand settled on distribution of liquidation estate by the liquidator. Hence, withholding of electricity connection due to payment of dues prior to issuance of sale certificate not justified.
