Delhi High Court held that section 67(7) of the CGST Act mandates that notice of extension of the seizure is required to be issued to the assessee prior to conclusion of the six-month period. Thus, seized goods are directed to be released.
Madras High Court directed to expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed before Appellate Authority and also held that stay granted shall continue to operate till the disposal of pending appeal.
NCLT Mumbai held that payment made after Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] without consent of Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] is breach of moratorium as provided in Section 14 of the Code. Hence, payment is liable to be refunded back to Corporate Debtor.
Delhi High Court held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) based on office order dated 3rd April 2018 is legal since MOF has only allocated work relating to all disciplinary matter to MOS and there is no sub-delegation of work.
NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against personal guarantor u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
NCLT Mumbai approved ACME Cleantech Solutions Private Limited resolution plan as moved by resolution professional of Reliance Big Private Limited The present Application is moved by Mr. Rohit Ramesh Mehra (“Applicant”), Resolution Professional of Reliance Big Private Limited (“Corporate debtor”) under Section 30(6) r/w Section 31 (l) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Kerala High Court held that commencement of GST audit u/s. 65 means date on which records and documents are made available by registered person. Hence, GST audit ought to be completed within 3 months from the said date.
Madras High Court held that extension of period for bringing immovable property to sale by auction is justifiable since time limit got extended as per proviso to rule 68B. Thus, writ petition stands dismissed.
ITAT Jaipur held that assessee just needs to establish that the amount has come from the bank account of the cash-creditors. Assessee is not required to prove the source of the amount in the bank accounts of the cash creditors. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted since genuineness of transaction proved.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer renders assessment bad-in-law. Thus, assessment order is bad-in-law and hence liable to be quashed.
