The allegations surfaced that a syndicate was involved in importing multiple high-end cars in the names of foreign diplomats, evading duties, forging bills of entry, and subsequently selling the cars to unsuspecting buyers in India.
Allahabad High Court held that initiation of proceedings under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act cannot be reason for provisional attachment. Accordingly, provisional attachment notices quashed due to lack of specific reasoning.
Delhi High Court held that CLAT(PG) examination is conducted for purposes of making admission to Post Graduate courses and not for offering public employment. Accordingly, NHAI recruitment criteria on the merit in CLAT (PG) is legally untenable and hence quashed.
Delhi High Court confirmed that businesses must reduce prices to pass on GST rate cuts to consumers, rejecting claims that increased quantity or free products justify price retention. The profiteering amount was directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Telangana High Court held that income earned from production of hybrid seeds under supervision of company is in the nature of agricultural activity and income earned from such activity is exempt under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Gujarat High Court held that claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Deduction under Section 36(1)(va) was allowable for a 16-day delay in depositing Employees’ Provident Fund by the assessee as delay was attributable due to the lockdown consequent upon the COVID-19 pandemic.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act justifiable since the money trail establishes circulation of assessee’s own unaccounted funds through shell company. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed and order of ITAT set aside.
Delhi High Court confirms GST Appellate Authority’s full power under Sec. 107(11) to re-adjudicate refund claims, consider new evidence, and prevent inconsistent, piecemeal orders.
The Gujarat High Court ruled in MC Bauchemie that a discrepancy between E-way bill turnover and GSTR-9 turnover is insufficient alone to invoke GST demand proceedings under Section 73. Authorities must establish fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression to assume jurisdiction.
