The NCLT Kolkata admitted a Section 7 IBC petition after holding that the bank successfully established existence of financial debt and repayment default. The Tribunal initiated CIRP and imposed moratorium against the Corporate Debtor.
The Chhattisgarh High Court denied anticipatory bail after finding prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged coal levy scam. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to statements, electronic evidence, and the seriousness of the economic offence.
The Mumbai CESTAT remanded a service tax dispute after finding that the appellant failed to include grounds of appeal in the prescribed ST-4 form. The Tribunal held that proper pleadings are essential for meaningful appellate adjudication.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that a CFS operator remained liable to pay cost recovery charges even without formal sanction of customs posts. The Court applied the doctrine of “substance over form” after finding that customs supervision and services were continuously provided.
The Tamil Nadu AAR observed that devotees’ tonsuring is a religious activity exempt from GST, but the subsequent licensing of hair collection is a separate commercial transaction liable to GST.
The Tamil Nadu AAR ruled that the GST advance ruling application stood withdrawn after the applicant informed the authority about its decision to withdraw the filing due to business transformation plans.
The Tamil Nadu AAR held that commission paid to a foreign national director for sourcing export orders attracts GST under reverse charge as it qualifies as import of services. The ruling relied on place of supply provisions under the IGST Act.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the petitioner filed pending returns and cleared tax dues. The Court relied on earlier similar rulings involving cancellation for non-filing of returns.
The Court directed release of the refund amount deposited before it after finding that no interim order from the Appellate Tribunal restrained refund disbursal. The release was made subject to future appellate orders.
CESTAT Delhi held that incorrect classification or self-assessment of imported goods does not automatically constitute misdeclaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the Customs Broker.
