The Court held that even though pre-deposit compliance was disputed, the appellate authority had decided the case on merits. Since the merit findings were not shown to be unreasonable, no interference was warranted.
The Court ruled that the petitioner must challenge the confiscation order through the statutory appellate process, deeming the order served on the date of the judgment and ensuring her right to a personal hearing.
The Delhi High Court found that the search, seizure, and detention of goods under Section 67(2) CGST were invalid, as statutory conditions were not met.
The Court held that Section 148 notices dated 31 March 2021 but issued after that date could not be treated as issued within the old limitation period. The ruling applies the amended reassessment framework and the Supreme Court’s directions in similar cases.
The Gujarat High Court allowed a chemical manufacturer’s refund claim of unutilized ITC under Rule 89, affirming SEZ units can claim refunds even when supplied via ISD. Prior precedent in Britannia Industries guided the decision.
The Delhi High Court held that TDS for non-residents without PAN should follow DTAA rates, not the 20% rate under Section 206AA. The ruling confirms treaty provisions override procedural domestic laws.
Nannapaneni Krishnamurthy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the investigation and proceedings against the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 12 and 13 in Crime No. 8 of 2021 registered at the CID Police Station, Amaravathi, Mangalagiri. The case involves […]
Bombay High Court held that Brand Acquisition Agreement in respect of trademark –‘Crocin’ between parties is an agreement to Sale and such sale is not a sale within the State of Maharashtra hence not liable to sales tax @4% under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
The Court set aside notices issued manually by the JAO, holding that reassessment and issuance of Section 148 notices must follow the mandatory faceless mechanism under Section 151A. The ruling reinforces that the JAO has no concurrent jurisdiction.
The Court held that an appeal cannot be dismissed for pre-deposit deficiency without prior notice or opportunity to cure the defect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
