Delhi High Court held that non-deposition of deducted tax with the revenue by the employer cannot be recovered from employee as employee after accepting salary post TDS deduction doesn’t have any control over it.
Delhi High Court in matter involving Law Minister of the State of West Bengal in illegal coal excavation case directed Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to summons the petitioner at its Kolkata Office by giving at least 24 hours notice considering the age and medical status of the minister.
ITAT Delhi held that offshore services that involve offshore supply of drawings and designs are inextricably linked with the offshore supply of Plant and equipment. Accordingly, the receipts from offshore services does not give rise to any income accruing or arising in India and therefore not taxable under the Act.
Bombay High Court held that it was appropriate for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for refund of money as amount deposited under protest was retained by the department without authority of law.
CESTAT Delhi held that once the goods are cleared for home consumption after examination and assessment, unless there is an evidence to support, demand u/s. 28 invoking extended period of limitation cannot be raised unless there is evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts are proven.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license unjustified as there is no evidence that shows that the customs broker was aware about the mis-declaration of weight of pan masala as declared in the shipping bill.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the provisions of Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 shall override the rights of others to recover the outstanding liability of taxes dues etc on the mortgaged/charged property from the original owner etc.
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that furnishing of shipping document or best evidence is must in respect of supplies made to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep for the purpose of availing concessional rate of tax @4% under proviso to section 6(1) of the KVAT Act.
Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.
Madras High Court held that Advance Ruling holding that services of loading, unloading, packing etc., rendered in relation to the wheat imported is not entitled to exemption in terms of S.No.54(e) of Notification No.12 of 2017 is unsustainable.