Kerala High Court held that condonation of delay in filing of the annual returns only averts penalty and prosecution and doesn’t remove disqualification of the directors of the Company. Accordingly, the writ is disposed of and order is quashed.
The Court extended interim relief to contractors as the classification of Delhi Jal Board as a local authority is under consideration. The final GST rate applicable to contracts will depend on this determination.
The Court held that recording satisfaction after a delay of nine months was not immediate as required by law. It upheld quashing of assessment proceedings and deletion of undisclosed income addition.
The Court held that while detention proceedings may continue, authorities must consider provisional release of goods under Section 67(6). It directed issuance of a reasoned order without examining merits.
Madras High Court held that money laundering offense is independent from predicate offense. Thus, conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent Prevention of Money Laundering Act prosecution doesn’t constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Court stayed GST proceedings while examining if Delhi Jal Board qualifies as a local authority. The outcome will determine applicable GST rate on works contracts.
The Court held that a delay of more than eight years in passing an order pursuant to a Tribunal remand cannot be considered reasonable. It ruled that such proceedings are barred by limitation and upheld the refund with interest.
Madras High Court held that refund claim filed is rightly rejected since differential customs duty was paid voluntarily and not under protest during DRI [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] investigation and closure of proceeding was requested by importer. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire class. It upheld that uniform treatment satisfies statutory requirements under Section 106.
The High Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely due to delay in claiming it after retrospective amendments to GST law. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on other conditions.
