The Gujarat High Court directed authorities not to pass any final order in a GST dispute concerning corporate guarantees during pendency of the writ petition. The case challenges Rule 28(2) and circulars prescribing 1% deemed valuation for GST purposes.
Gujarat High Court quashed tax orders after holding that three hearing dates cannot be treated as three adjournments under Section 33A, citing breach of natural justice.
The Tribunal observed that earlier additions were primarily based on DRI show-cause notices without independent investigation by the Assessing Officer. Fresh adjudication was ordered after admission of subsequent customs findings.
The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a Chartered Accountant accused in a share transfer fraud case, observing that the evidence was primarily documentary in nature. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary in the circumstances.
Tribunal held that Section 159A of the Customs Act could not revive Rules 16 and 16A of repealed 1995 Drawback Rules where 2017 Rules showed a different legislative intention. Recovery proceedings initiated in 2022 were therefore held unsustainable.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that the BOOT water transmission agreement was a single indivisible works contract and not a trading activity. The Tribunal held that transfer of property in goods during execution did not convert the contract into sale of goods.
The Delhi High Court held that the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide and extends to documentary evidence in addition to oral testimony. The provision can be used whenever the evidence is essential for a just decision.
Tribunal ruled that compliance with judicial orders restraining deduction of tax at source cannot attract liability under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that if Government money was fraudulently routed through the assessee’s account by another person, such deposits may not constitute the assessee’s income. The case was remanded for factual verification.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalties under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed without a finding that goods were liable to confiscation. The Tribunal set aside the penalties as the impugned order contained no such determination.
