Madras High Court held that compounding charges payable by petitioner as per revised Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 is unsustainable since on the date of writ order i.e. 13.04.2022, the revised guidelines was not in force. Accordingly, writ petition deserved to be allowed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that DGFT notification no. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of Garnet irrespective of its origin. Customs tariff doesn’t distinguish between ‘Garnet found on beach’ and ‘Garnet found in inland places’. Accordingly, confiscation of export goods uphold and penalty imposed.
Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice for demand of interest and penalty after obtaining discharge certificate under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS] is not tenable in law. Writ disposed of, accordingly.
Bombay High Court held that interest under section 25(4) of the GVAT on delayed payment of VAT on sales of High Bouquet Spirit (HBS)/Rectified Spirit (RS)/Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) justifiable in spite of uncertainty with regard to levy to be imposed on the same.
CESTAT Allahabad held that the case of imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act would be covered under regulation 3 (2) (c) and hence appellant is not eligible for grant of License for Private Warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act.
Orissa High Court held that recovery towards arrear electricity duty demand set aside since there is procedural flaw in Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 [OPDR proceeding] and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Calcutta High Court held that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction in as much as the alleged infringements has occurred in Delhi and not in West Bengal. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
NCLAT Delhi held that shareholders have locus standi to file appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and hence the appeal is maintainable. Further, appellant has made out case of fraudulent initiation of CIRP since both Financial Creditor and Corporate Debtor are related parties.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received for grant of non-exclusive broadcasting rights of feature films cannot be termed as “royalty” within the parameters of “royalty” as defined in Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order set aside.
Karnataka High Court held that the power of revocation of detention orders is specifically vested with the Central Government and not with the detaining authority under Section 11 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [COFEPOSA Act].
