The Bombay High Court held that TCS paid under protest before assessment must be considered while calculating the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court found that the amount already paid exceeded the statutory requirement, eliminating the need for any further deposit.
The Court held that a purchasing dealer cannot be denied input tax credit solely because the supplier failed to deposit tax with the Government. It ruled that action must ordinarily be directed against the defaulting supplier unless collusion or lack of bona fides is established.
The Bangalore ITAT held that ambiguity in the penalty proceedings rendered the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 270A.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s judgment, which had held that the issues raised by the Revenue were already settled by precedent in the assessee’s own case.
The High Court refused to entertain the Revenue’s appeal after holding that the questions raised had already been decided in the assessee’s favour in an earlier judgment involving the same assessment year.
The Karnataka High Court held that criminal proceedings under Sections 447 and 448 of the Companies Act could not continue against a former director who had resigned before the company’s commercial activities began. Finding no specific allegations against him, the Court quashed the proceedings.
The Delhi High Court held that whether coal beneficiation amounts to manufacturing involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring evidence. It declined to quash prosecution for alleged non-compliance with cost audit requirements under the Companies Act.
The Madras High Court admitted writ petitions challenging a GST demand arising from the classification of logistics services as intermediary services. Holding that the issue required detailed consideration, the Court stayed further recovery proceedings subject to a deposit of Rs.1.80 crore.
The Court held that the delay in e-verification of Form 10B during the pandemic was supported by bona fide reasons. It ruled that denying exemption on technical grounds would cause genuine hardship.
The Court held that producing an accused before a Magistrate in another State without obtaining transit remand rendered the detention illegal. The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards in GST-related arrests.
