Madras High Court held that notice and order uploaded on GST portal were not responded due to several technical glitches in the GST portal and e-mechanism was new to the assessee. Accordingly, order set aside with direction to pay 25% of disputed tax.
Kerala High Court held that the import duty paid is liable to be refunded since the goods were never cleared for home consumption but were re-exported. Thus, customs department cannot retain the amount for the goods which were never cleared for home consumption.
The petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that the amounts due under the orders of assessment are being sought to be recovered by attaching the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner with the 5th respondent bank.
CESTAT Chennai upheld the order directing fixation of brand rates of duty drawback for drawback of duties suffered on inputs used in exports of cotton denim fabrics as no efforts made by revenue to negate the findings of appellate authority.
ITAT Hyderabad held that entire cash deposits added towards unexplained money unjustified since benefit of telescoping of withdrawals against the subsequent deposits should be given. Accordingly, matter remanded back.
Held that the Income Tax Department is permitted to withdraw from the bank accounts of the Company/petitioners a total sum of Rs.6,42,07,469/- towards 20% of the amount directed to be paid as a condition for stay by the First Appellate Authority in order.
M/s. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kanchipuram (HMIL), are engaged in the manufacture of passenger motor cars, under the brand name of “Hyundai”. They import various parts and accessories of passenger motor cars through Chennai ports.
Orissa High Court held that once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to the rules, his seniority has to be reckoned from the date of the initial appointment and not according to the date of confirmation, unless the rules provide otherwise.
Supreme Court held that fresh application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable in the absence of any liberty being granted at the time of withdrawal of the first application.
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India invoked due to non-implementation of approved resolution plan even after five years of the approval. Accordingly, it is directed that the corporate debtor be taken in liquidation.
