The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a GST demand order involving alleged misclassification of cargo transport services, holding that the petitioner should pursue statutory appellate remedies. The Court found no violation of natural justice.
Delhi High Court upheld the view that high-purity gold jewellery could not be absolutely confiscated merely because it fell within the category of primary gold. Redemption on payment of fine and duty was allowed.
Tribunal found that the assessee had paid applicable R&D cess on royalty and technical know-how fees and had maintained supporting records. Exemption equivalent to service tax liability was therefore allowed.
CESTAT held that sharing telecast rights of horse racing events with other clubs against downlinking charges amounted to commercial exploitation of events. Service tax demand for the post-2010 period was upheld.
The Madras High Court directed GST authorities to keep proceedings on seigniorage fee and royalty demands in abeyance until the Supreme Court decides the issue. The Court, however, required deposit of 10% of the disputed tax as security.
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Tribunal held that Section 159A of the Customs Act could not revive Rules 16 and 16A of repealed 1995 Drawback Rules where 2017 Rules showed a different legislative intention.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.
