Allahabad HC grants bail to Manoj Kumar Garg in a {₹}40 crore fake ITC case, citing completed investigation, documentary evidence, slow trial pace, and limited maximum sentence.
An Indian citizen was caught by the Customs Department attempting to depart with 15,000 U.S. Dollars concealed without valid documentation, leading to the absolute confiscation of the currency and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA).
The Orissa High Court dismissed a plea by a Managing Director to discharge himself from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments NI Act, 1881, following his company’s entry into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process CIRP under the IBC, 2016.
Bombay High Court quashed the Section 127 transfer of a former CFO’s case from Mumbai to Delhi, ruling that the basis for transfer coordinated investigation eased once the main company’s assessment was complete.
The Gujarat High Court confirmed the Tribunal’s decision to disallow 25% of bogus purchases shown by Vijay Proteins Ltd., but quashed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act.
Allahabad High Court rules in Aysha Builders case that generating an e-way bill after vehicle detention is non-compliant, frustrating the GST Act’s purpose, and upholds the Rs 75,600 penalty.
Gujarat High Court rules refund for double IGST payment cannot be denied on Customs Act limitation grounds, as revenue cannot retain tax paid without authority of law.
Chhattisgarh High Court set aside a GST demand of Rs 5 Cr, ruling the amount violated Section 75(7) of the GST Act by exceeding the SCN’s stated liability.
Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
Non-service of notice and denial of hearing before adjudication under Section 73 violates Section 75(4) and the principles of natural justice, therefore, the demand order passed ex parte under Section 73 in such circumstances was unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
