Delhi High Court held that penalty duly imposed on employee of Custom House Agent [CHA] for failure to ensure clean credentials of the importer. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and order passed by CESTAT upheld.
Jharkhand High Court in Maa Kalyani Electrical Vs Union of India set aside an appellate order that rejected an appeal on ‘functus officio’ grounds. The court held that since the original dismissal was only for failure to make a mandatory pre-deposit, not on merits, the authority wasn’t functus officio after the deposit was subsequently made.
Gauhati High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 without issuing Form GST ASMT-10 as prescribed under section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 is invalid. Accordingly, held that action is contrary to the provisions of law.
Madras High Court held that petitioner has placed on record sufficient evidence proving financial capability of partners for capital contribution. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back for reconsideration.
Karnataka HC rules GST provisional attachment requires mandatory initiation of specific proceedings (Sec 83). Pre-decisional hearing isn’t required, but summons alone is insufficient.
This Income Tax appeal addressed whether a 5% infrastructure fee should be deducted based on gross bills or actual cash receipts. The Bombay High Court upheld the lower authorities decision, emphasizing that the expenditures deduction must strictly follow the contractual clause, which explicitly linked the 5% payment to total receipts, thereby restricting the allowable deduction.
$\text{Karnataka \text{ HC}$ quashes AY 2018-19 reassessment and penalty, ruling that Section 148A(b) notice granting only $\text{5 \text{ days}$ to respond violated the mandatory “not less than seven days” rule.
High Court held that reassessment notices/orders issued by the AO, rather than NFAC, are void due to jurisdictional defects. The ruling reinforces procedural fairness and statutory compliance.
Karnataka High Court sets aside reassessment order, ruling that the jurisdictional AO lacked authority to issue a notice and complete proceedings by bypassing the mandatory $\text{Faceless \text{ Assessment \text{ Scheme}}$ (NFAC).
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
