The High Court granted regular bail in a ₹26.19 crore fake ITC case, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, and that the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum five-year sentence.
The High Court set aside the rejection of an appeal filed with a 214-day delay, holding that the petitioner’s explanation regarding the accountant’s failure was genuine. The delay was condoned subject to payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit.
The High Court set aside an order denying additional interest under Section 244(1A), holding that it was based on a Bombay High Court judgment later reversed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court held that when no response is received on portal notices, officers must explore alternative service modes under Section 169. The ex parte order was quashed and remanded for fresh hearing.
The Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging rectification orders under Section 161, holding that the petitioner must pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking Article 226.
Madras High Court directed provisional release of detained second-hand MFDs, following earlier orders in similar cases. Release is subject to conditions and final adjudication.
Madras High Court held that the Settlement Commission did not adequately scrutinize the detailed explanation of undisclosed income. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 245C.
Karnataka High Court held that taxpayer cannot be permitted to retract voluntary disclosed income admitted in return of income filed nearly 14 months after the survey without giving evidence of coercion. Accordingly, appeal of assessee stands dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that provisional release is not contemplated under section 130 of the CGST Act. Also held that continued detention of goods is not legally sustainable, merely because the proceedings u/s. 130 is in progress.
The Bombay High Court held that a separate cooperative society could not be registered for shops forming part of a single building already governed by an existing society. The Court ruled that registration under Section 9 cannot be used to indirectly fragment an existing society.
