Bail was granted in a spurious cancer drug case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as there was no clear link between the alleged proceeds of crime and the main offence and ED did not check important things like role of doctors, hospitals or end users.
The Court rejected the Revenue’s argument that payments for bandwidth and telecom connectivity constituted consideration for use of equipment. It held that the remittances were not royalty and therefore outside the scope of TDS liability.
Time-share membership fees received upfront were not fully taxable under the Income Tax Act in the same year as it was intrinsically linked with continuing contractual obligations to provide accommodation and related facilities throughout the membership period and it can be spread over the contract period because services are given for many years.
The Court ruled that although the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to levy penalty, initiation of proceedings still requires satisfaction recorded during assessment proceedings. Absence of such satisfaction rendered the penalty invalid.
The Calcutta High Court held that filing an audit report in Form 10BB instead of Form 10B was a procedural lapse that could not defeat substantive exemption rights under Section 12A. The Court directed the authority to decide the condonation application within a specified timeline.
The Calcutta High Court held that a rectification order under Section 154 passed after the statutory limitation period was without jurisdiction. The Court consequently quashed the order and related recovery proceedings.
Reimbursement of interim payments from insured banks in priority to other liabilities was a valid exercise of legislative competence. The argument that the DICGC, being an insurer, was limited to the rights of subrogation and could not rank higher than the insured depositors was rejected.
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Calcutta High Court refused to entertain the writ petition after noting that the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 had been constituted. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
Telangana High Court permitted the taxpayer to withdraw the writ petition and pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay sympathetically because the taxpayer had earlier approached the High Court.
