The High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, emphasizing that statements of pancha witnesses and co-notices cannot be relied upon without allowing cross-examination, ensuring fair adjudication under the Central Excise Act.
The case examined whether a GST authority can reject a rectification application without granting a hearing. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that denial of hearing causing civil consequences violates principles of natural justice.
The case involved detention of two-wheeler vehicles for e-way bill expiry. The High Court quashed the seizure, noting that proper invoices, registration, and GPS tracking showed no intent to evade tax.
The Court allowed lifting of the petitioner’s bank account attachment upon depositing 10% of disputed GST, directing the tax authority to reconsider blocked ITC.
The Court allowed anticipatory bail to a Lady Civic Volunteer implicated in a large spirit seizure, citing lack of direct evidence and her non-involvement with the seized vehicles.
Bombay High Court held that this court order doesn’t contain any ‘finding’ or ‘direction’ as contemplated by provisions of section 153(6) and consequently no order of assessment could be passed in view of bar of limitation in section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court dismissed the appeal after holding that the Tribunal’s findings on intra-group services raised no substantial question of law.
Karnataka High Court held that provisions of section 153C of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked since the petitioner was a searched person and not a non-searched person / such other person. Accordingly, the proceedings quashed.
The High Court held that assessment orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act automatically lapse once pending returns are filed with late fee, barring recovery action.
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to an accused in a GST evasion case involving Rs. 22 crore, considering the petitioner’s four-month custody and the statutory maximum punishment.
