The Madras High Court held that failure to follow the mandatory pre-consultative process before issuing show cause notices vitiates proceedings. Notices were set aside and matters remanded to the pre-consultation stage.
The court upheld confiscation of a 250 gm gold bar carried through the green channel without declaration. It ruled that misuse of the green channel and ineligibility under baggage rules justified absolute confiscation and penalty.
The Court ruled that a worn wristwatch qualifies as a passenger’s personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016. Customs authorities were directed to release the detained watch as its seizure was held unsustainable.
The High Court found that a GST appellate officer filed a misleading personal affidavit while defending a refund order. The ruling underscores that false or evasive statements to the Court can attract criminal contempt.
The court upheld waiver of interest on a confirmed excise duty demand, holding that revenue neutrality justified non-levy where no net loss to the exchequer occurred.
The court refused bail after finding prima facie evidence of large-scale GST evasion through online gaming transactions. The ruling highlights that high-value tax fraud attracts strict non-bailable consequences.
The court held that seizures carried out and served in another state did not give rise to jurisdiction merely because testing and headquarters were in Delhi, directing parties to the appropriate High Court.
The Bombay High Court held that insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors cannot continue before the DRT once CIRP of the corporate debtor is underway. Such proceedings must lie exclusively before the NCLT. The key takeaway is that Section 60 of the IBC overrides DRT jurisdiction in these cases.
Allahabad High Court held that bank not permitted to unilaterally reduce interest rates on Fixed Deposit Receipt [FDR] after issuance of the FDRs. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed and bank is directed to compute interest on FDRs at originally contracted rates.
The Court refused to quash a detailed GST show-cause notice, holding that the purchaser must participate in adjudication over alleged fraudulent ITC claims.
