Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act must be paid from 60 days after the original refund application, even if the refund is granted later following an appellate order. The Court relied on Lupin Ltd., Ranbaxy Laboratories, and other precedents to reject the Revenue’s stand.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Azharuddin, accused of over ₹20 crore (Rs.2.4 million) in GST evasion through Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud, considering the completion of the investigation, the filing of the complaint, the maximum five-year sentence, and Supreme Court rulings on bail for economic offenses based on documentary evidence.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against Casio India for AY 2017-18, upholding the deletion of a Transfer Pricing adjustment for AMP expenses. The court ruled that the issue was covered by prior judgments, which rejected the Bright Line Test methodology.
Punjab and Haryana High Court rules the time spent on a GST rectification application under Section 161 must be excluded from the appeal limitation period under Section 107, setting aside an appeal’s dismissal based on delay.
Karnataka High Court rules that duty on capital goods imported by an EOU is not leviable if the goods are installed and used for manufacturing, even if the export obligation is unfulfilled. Penalties under Section 112(a) are also invalidated.
The petitioner challenging GST orders was directed to comply with Trade Circular 13 August 2024 for interim protection; constitutional claims on Section 16(2)(c) can be raised only after exhausting remedies before the future GST Tribunal.
Orders blocking GST input tax credit under Rule 86-A were set aside because the petitioner filed a reply within the timeline, but the department issued restrictive orders prematurely without hearing the petitioner.
A school challenged the MCD’s tax calculation under the SUNIYO Amnesty Scheme. The Delhi High Court, citing an SC restraint on similar interim orders, rejected the plea for a conditional deposit, reinforcing the policy-based nature of tax amnesty offers.
The Madras High Court set aside an assessment order against Gayathri Builder, which failed to respond to a GST Show Cause Notice. The court quashed the order and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication, contingent on the builder depositing 25/% of the disputed tax and filing a complete reply within 30 days.
Bombay High Court held that directors cannot escape personal criminal liability for dishonoured cheques even if the company is under insolvency proceedings.
