The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted in a POCSO murder case, holding that the High Court failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the allegations, supporting material on record, and severity of punishment.
The Jodhpur ITAT held that deduction under Section 80GGC cannot be denied merely on allegations against a political party in the absence of evidence showing any benefit returned to the donor.
The Court ruled that confiscation proceedings before Customs Authorities do not amount to prosecution before a judicial tribunal. Consequently, subsequent criminal prosecution for the same act was held not to violate Article 20(2).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order restoring appeals through review proceedings is not separately appealable under the Benami Act. The Court ruled that Order 47 Rule 7 CPC barred such challenges.
The Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the High Court had rightly found prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged liquor syndicate. The Court emphasized that serious corruption allegations warranted an unhindered investigation.
The Gauhati High Court directed authorities to consider restoration of GST registration after the taxpayer filed pending returns and undertook to pay applicable tax, interest, late fees, and penalties. The ruling reiterates that eligible taxpayers may seek relief under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules.
The Competition Commission found that truck associations collectively fixed freight charges beyond government-prescribed limits and restricted market competition. The ruling directs them to cease such anti-competitive practices.
The Tribunal held that procurement strategy, supplier oversight, and sourcing support formed part of a substantive procurement service. Since these services were provided on the supplier’s own account, refund of IGST was denied.
The High Court granted bail in a POCSO case after noting that the victim did not support the prosecution story in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. The Court also considered the filing of the charge sheet and the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents.
CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the original customer. The Tribunal allowed the credit and ordered refund of the demand.
