ACC Limited Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Patna High Court held that packing materials namely gunny bags and HDPE bags are integral part of cement sales hence cannot be charged separately. Consolidated sales tax rate of 11% is applicable. Accordingly, appeals stand dismissed. Facts- The appellant, M/s ACC Limited, is a company incorporated under […]
Karnataka High Court held that mere change in route, without intention to evade tax, cannot attract penalty under section 129 of the KGST Act. Accordingly, order passed is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and hence petition is allowed.
Delhi High Court held that strict adherence to the procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and Rules 8 and 9 of the SARFAESI Rules cannot be insisted, as the sale of the secured asset was undertaken with the unequivocal consent of the borrowers. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
The issue was whether depreciation on goodwill arising from demerger was wrongly allowed. The Court held that since the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries and taken a plausible view, revision under Section 263 was invalid.
The High Court ruled that Rule 86A does not permit blocking of input tax credit beyond what is available in the electronic credit ledger. Creating a negative balance was held to be without jurisdiction.
The issue was whether additions could survive when no incriminating material was found during search proceedings. The court upheld the Tribunal’s view that Section 153A jurisdiction was invalid, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The High Court permitted the Enforcement Directorate to attach and freeze assets after finding a prima facie case of money laundering. The ruling reinforces ED’s powers to secure properties to protect depositor interests.
Bail was denied after the Court noted that the alleged offences involved a multi-state organised network. The ruling affirms that the gravity and scale of economic offences are key factors in bail decisions.
The Court set aside a rectification rejection passed before the scheduled hearing date, holding that Section 154(3) requires a prior opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with natural justice.
The issue was whether CBIC notifications could extend limitation for orders under Section 73. The Court held the notifications illegal and directed fresh adjudication after treating prior orders as show cause notices.
