Karnataka High Court held that Enforcement Directorate cannot attach assets mortgaged to banks under SARFAESI Act. Court found that such properties, acquired through lawful bank loans, are not proceeds of crime. It reaffirmed that secured creditors’ recovery rights under SARFAESI override PMLA proceedings where the bank is a victim, not a beneficiary.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in terms of Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules, SEZ developer not utilizing the goods or services on which exemptions, drawbacks, cess and concession have been availed needs to refund the concessions so availed.
These Public Interest Litigations are filed by the petitioners substantially seeking the relief of including the petrol and diesel under the GST regime so as to achieve a harmonized national market as contemplated under Article 279 (A) of the Constitution of India.
The amendment to Explanation 1(d) of Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effected vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was prospective in nature, therefore, any claim for ITC made in respect of periods antecedent to the notification could not be sustained.
Mens rea was not essential for penalty under Section 117, revocation of the courier license was unwarranted; penalties under both Section 117 of the Customs Act and Regulation 14 of the 2010 Regulations were validly imposed.
Orissa High Court held that initiation of proceedings on same subject matter under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by different tax administrations is not justifiable. Accordingly, subsequent proceedings initiated by Central Proper Officer not sustained.
Delhi High Court held that separate transfer pricing adjustment for AMP was uncalled for given that the distribution business of assessee was already benchmarked separately and the transaction was benchmarked correctly.
Gauhati High Court held that the Summary of the SCN issued in FORM GST DRC-01 does not substitute the proper SCN required under Section 73(1) of both the Central and State GST Acts. Accordingly, order set aside and writ petition is allowed.
The Madras High Court set aside a reassessment notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, holding it void under the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Court ruled that only the Faceless Assessment Officer has the authority to issue such notices. This decision reinforces the binding nature of the faceless reassessment mechanism post-notification.
The Madras High Court directed the Income Tax Department to dispose of a representation pending since 2014 within six weeks. The Court noted that the Department had already acknowledged the delay and must now act promptly. The ruling reinforces that prolonged inaction on taxpayer representations is unacceptable.
