The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a best judgment assessment is deemed withdrawn when the taxpayer files returns, and any recovery based on the withdrawn order is illegal.
Detention of a foreign national’s 84-gram gold chain by Customs without issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) within one year u/s 110 of Customs Act was invalid and the continued detention was impermissible in law.
Once the death was intimated, the Department ought to have proceeded against the legal heirs rather than the deceased. Since the impugned order was passed against a dead person, it was invalid in law.
Premature issuance of the order nullified the opportunity for the taxpayer to present its defense and documents, which was fundamental to fair adjudication. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the department was directed to re-adjudicate the matter.
Rajasthan High Court held that amendment to notification dated 10.07.2019 made vide notification dated 24.02.2021 by adding new category ‘Sleeper Bus’ is valid. Accordingly, levy of motor vehicle tax on ‘Sleeper Bus’ upheld.
Calcutta High Court held that DRAT order dismissing appeal of MSME upheld since MSME did not avail of the facilities and allowed the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 to run its course, then it is not entitled to any protection.
Refund of CENVAT Credit was permissible on input services used in export, even if the exported output service was not taxable during the relevant period.
Mere clerical error in filing GSTR-3B, when GSTR-1 reflected correct figures and no revenue loss occurred to department, could not be a ground for raising tax demands and taxpayer was permitted to rectify a clerical error made while filing GSTR-3B.
Transfer or assignment of leasehold rights of industrial plots did not amount to a taxable supply under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as per provisions of Section 7(1)(a) read with Schedule II and Schedule III.
Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application since the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled. Also, there is sufficient material collected by ED to show that the applicant is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
