The Court granted interim relief after noting absence of proof that mandatory approval under Section 151 was served on the assessee. It held that the petitioner had made out an arguable case warranting stay of the Section 148 notice.
The Delhi High Court held that delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot defeat a substantive claim for Foreign Tax Credit. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify and grant FTC, observing that denial on technical grounds would amount to unjust enrichment.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration, noting it was based solely on non-filing of returns for six months. The Court granted the taxpayer four weeks to file returns and clear dues for restoration.
The Court held that there is no provision for deducting GST, incentive advance, or festival advance from retiral dues and directed full payment without deductions.
Holding that GST registration is not confined to individual districts, the Court ruled that the eligibility condition lacked rational nexus with procurement objectives. The clause was struck down as unconstitutional.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that economic offences involving public money cannot be quashed unless no offence is disclosed. The petition was dismissed for lack of exceptional grounds.
The High Court granted bail in a ₹35 crore GST evasion case, noting the petitioner’s voluntary deposit of ₹1.25 crore and medical grounds, subject to strict conditions.
The High Court ruled that LTC involving foreign travel is not exempt under Section 10(5) and TDS must be deducted under Section 192. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.
Delhi High Court held that prior testimony inadmissible under section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since prosecution didn’t prove that witness is unavailability for post charge cross-examination. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
The Court quashed the TPO’s order after finding that copies of agreements relied upon were not supplied, holding that denial of such documents violated the taxpayer’s right to defend.
