High Court held that the Company Court may transfer pending winding-up proceedings after applying its judicial mind where the proceedings have not reached an irreversible stage. The appeal challenging the transfer failed.
The Gauhati High Court quashed a GST registration cancellation order after holding that it failed to record reasons as required under Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19. The Court restored the proceedings to the show cause notice stage and directed fresh action in accordance with law.
The Delhi High Court held that borrowing funds to repay an earlier loan falls within the assessee’s commercial wisdom. It upheld the allowance of related expenditure and dismissed the Department’s appeal.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The Allahabad High Court quashed a GST demand order after finding that notices were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the prescribed tab. The Court directed issuance of a fresh notice with at least 15 clear days’ notice.
The Allahabad High Court held that filing an appeal against an appellate order does not automatically stay its operation. It directed immediate restoration of GST registration in compliance with the appellate authority’s order.
The Court rejected the challenge to the search conducted under Section 132 and upheld the legality of the search proceedings. It, however, permitted affected petitioners to pursue compensation before the appropriate forum regarding the handling of a medical emergency during the search.
The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures without necessarily requiring expert evidence. It restored the Trial Courts decree after finding the comparison legally valid.
The Madras High Court held that although execution of the promissory note was admitted, the plaintiff failed to prove that consideration had actually passed. It confirmed dismissal of the money recovery suit.
The Rajasthan High Court held that policy decisions relating to the Foreign Trade Policy and the Hand Book of Procedure cannot be altered through judicial directions under Article 226. It dismissed the PIL seeking directions to modify the framework governing pre-import and Actual User Conditions.
