The Karnataka High Court held that objections relating to an officer performing dual roles in audit and adjudication must be examined before merits are considered. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after jurisdictional findings.
The Delhi High Court held that frozen chicken supplied to the Indian Army was not exempt from GST because it was supplied in unit containers. The Court directed reimbursement of GST paid by the supplier along with interest for delayed payment.
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.
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 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.
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.
The Madras High Court held that prosecution under Section 276CC was invalid because the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction over the assessee’s case. In absence of a transfer order under Section 127, the complaint was held unsustainable.
