The High Court upheld confiscation and penalties where goods declared as grey fabric were found to be corduroy. The ruling confirms that misdeclaration attracts action under the Customs Act.
The High Court held that Sections 73 and 74 no longer apply from FY 2024–25 and set aside an order passed under Section 73. The order was directed to be treated as a notice under Section 74A.
The tribunal held that since the IEC alert was lifted after the original order, the refund claim required fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to allow document submission and lawful adjudication.
CESTAT held that failure to intimate change of address and return of postal notices showed lack of bona fides. Appeals filed late were rightly rejected as time-barred.
CESTAT confirmed confiscation and penalties where memory cards were hidden inside declared metal clips. Mis-declaration and concealment justified duty demand and penalties.
The Court found a major discrepancy between GST returns, income tax declarations, and bank receipts, ordering a forensic audit before fixing liability and remanding the matter for fresh assessment.
ITAT held that penalties under sections 271D and 271E cannot survive once the underlying additions are deleted. The ruling confirms that penalties collapse with the quantum.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a special audit under Section 142(2A) cannot stand where the mandatory approval lacks a DIN. The absence of DIN renders the approval non-existent in law, making the entire proceedings void from inception.
The court held that rejection of IGST refund interest on jurisdictional grounds could not defeat a diligent claim and allowed the taxpayer to approach the GST appellate authority without facing limitation hurdles.
NCLAT upheld rejection of a claim filed nearly three years late during liquidation. The ruling confirms that inordinate delays without valid explanation cannot be condoned.
