The court upheld customs seizure during domestic transit, holding that prima facie “reason to believe” based on suspicious circumstances is sufficient. Detailed reasons need not be recorded at the seizure stage.
The High Court upheld confiscation and penalties where goods declared as grey fabric were found to be corduroy. The ruling confirms that misdeclaration attracts action under the Customs Act.
The High Court held that Sections 73 and 74 no longer apply from FY 2024–25 and set aside an order passed under Section 73. The order was directed to be treated as a notice under Section 74A.
Madras High Court held that countervailing duty [CVD] is not leviable on vessels that are imported into India prior to notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 which is later converted from foreign-run to coastal run. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court found a major discrepancy between GST returns, income tax declarations, and bank receipts, ordering a forensic audit before fixing liability and remanding the matter for fresh assessment.
Calcutta High Court held that Look Out Circular is quashed since the investigation is going on and no interim report is submitted. Thus, as on date there is no cognizable case initiated against petitioner under the Indian Penal Code.
Gujarat High Court held that amendment/ rectification of inadvertent error in GST returns [Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B] is permissible if no loss to revenue would be caused. Accordingly, petition is allowed and returns are permitted to be amended.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a special audit under Section 142(2A) cannot stand where the mandatory approval lacks a DIN. The absence of DIN renders the approval non-existent in law, making the entire proceedings void from inception.
The court held that rejection of IGST refund interest on jurisdictional grounds could not defeat a diligent claim and allowed the taxpayer to approach the GST appellate authority without facing limitation hurdles.
The court set aside reassessment orders and notices as the issue was already covered by an earlier judgment. Consequential proceedings were also nullified, with other rights kept open.
