There exists a reasonable belief, duly recorded and supported by material evidence, that the attached properties are involved in money laundering and further, the appellants have failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA.
Madras High Court held that recovery of availed duty drawback beyond period of three years from the date of respective shipment is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is directed to reconsider the matter after affording personal hearing as order was passed in violation of natural justice.
Madras High Court has instructed NCLT to file detailed counter as NCLT has proceeded to appoint the Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] different from that suggested by Corporate Debtor [CD].
Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under Customs Act by Additional Director General of Central Excise Intelligence based on notification which does not specify any territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable in law.
Karnataka High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing appellate authority to dispose of the matter expeditiously as amount recovered under GST as petitioner alleges that recovery is done adopting coercive and forceful means.
Madras High Court held that the provisional attachment order passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act could not be made a basis to challenge any action that may be taken in future or any order passed towards recovery of loan under the SARFAESI Act.
Calcutta High Court held that compounding application under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 cannot be maintained post completion of adjudication process. Accordingly, appeal failed and hereby dismissed.
Uttarakhand High Court held that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made applicable to short deduction of tax at source and the disallowance made was rightly directed to be deleted. Accordingly, writ of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court granted regular bail in view of absence of evidence/ material alleging connection of petitioner in GST bogus firm registration case and also petitioner being in judicial custody for almost 8 months.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges are subject to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194I, as they are for services and not rent.
