The Orissa High Court has quashed a GST demand for the 2017-18 financial year, citing retrospective amendments to Section 50 of the CGST Act and prior judicial precedent.
Madras High Court directs appellate Commissioner to condone the delay in filing of an appeal and consider that the petitioner cannot be left without any remedy, as there are prima facie indications of a mistake in not filing Form 67 as required under Rule 128 of the Income Tax Rule, 1962.
Bombay High Court held that the expression ‘a residential house’ in unamended Section 54(1) of the Act includes more than one residential house. Thus, sale proceeds of one residential house used for purchase of multiple residential house qualifies for exemption u/s. 54(1).
Delhi High Court upheld the attachment order under PMLA in view of appellant’s criminal and appellant’s failure to discharge the burden of proving the facts in support of his claim that the attached properties are untainted and not obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity.
Gujarat High Court held that not providing seven days time for filing of reply against notice in Form GST MOV-07 and passing of the impugned order u/s. 129(3) of the CGST Act amounts to flagrant breach of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ allowed.
Delhi High Court held that provisions of section 75(5) of the CGST Act cannot be interpreted in a manner that there has to mandatorily be a minimum of three adjournments afforded to every person. Accordingly, writ dismissed as not entertained.
Karnataka High Court dismisses a Revenue appeal, affirming that additions cannot be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during a search.
Madras High Court held that no interpretation contrary to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [IBC] can be attributed to the expression ‘going concern sale’ as contemplated under Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016.
Orissa High Court held that money recovered from the petitioner constitutes ‘proceeds of crime’ unless the same is disproved at trial. Accordingly, proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA] upheld.
Jammu Kashmir High Court held that pre-arrest bail application of accused involved in bogus “crypto currency/Emollient Coin” Ponzi Scheme is liable to be dismissed since matter involves heinous offences of economic nature which is being connected with the proceeds of crime.
