A valid Chartered Accountant certificate was sufficient to discharge the burden of proving that the incidence of 4% SAD was not passed on to customers and discharge the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment.
Offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. COC had miserably failed to discharge the obligation cast on him to show that the impugned action was initiated within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report.
Gujarat High Court held that assessment order passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without granting opportunity of personal hearing is not tenable. Accordingly, the order is quashed and appeal is allowed.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the ITAT’s rejection of a rectification plea to recall an appeal order; the court found no mistake apparent on record and upheld the ITAT’s finding of no prejudice to the assessee.
An Official Liquidator Report filed in the Gujarat High Court was disposed of, approving a final settlement payment of Rs 90 lakh to PNB and GIIC as unsecured creditors in the liquidation of Aesculapius Remedies Ltd. The funds are to be distributed under Section 530 after a CA-verified claim report confirmed the creditors’ unsecured status.
High Court ruled against petitioner, stating that offense of possessing significant cash and a gold bar is outside protection afforded by Section 218 of BNSS. Ruling affirms lower court’s order taking cognizance under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The High Court set aside CESTAT’s remand orders, ruling that the legal challenge to DRI jurisdiction is resolved by the Supreme Court’s definitive judgment. The court condoned the substantial filing delay conditional on the deposit of ₹10,000/- in costs per appeal.
The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, noting that the petitioner was not a partner or director of the accused company and that the complainant did not simply rely on the petitioner’s introduction.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a GST assessment order, ruling that the revenue authority’s scheduling of a personal hearing before the deadline for the assessee’s reply was procedurally incorrect. The holding emphasizes that an assessment must be performed according to the scheme of Section 75, which allows the assessee a right to adjournment and requires the hearing to address the filed reply.
The Madras High Court dismissed Tvl. Saravana Projects & Co.’s writ against a confirmed GST demand for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC), finding no procedural defects in the order. The court noted the writ was filed after the statutory delay condonation period for appeal expired.
