Bombay High Court addresses potential contempt of court in the arrest of Mishal J Shah by state tax officials. Key developments and next steps detailed.
Delhi High Court held that order lacking reasons and also lacking application of mind to the reply furnished by the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, order passed under GST quashed.
Madras High Court held that since concealment of proceeds of crime is an offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA], Enforcement Directorate need not demonstrate where the money eventually went.
Delhi High Court held the gold jewellery in the form of ornaments worn by the foreign tourist would not qualify for seizure under Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016. Thus, the detention receipt is accordingly quashed.
Delhi High Court held that validity of reassessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act has to be determined based on original reasons disclosed to the assessee. Such reasons cannot be improved upon subsequently.
Gauhati High Court held that discharge of burden by assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction is question of fact and not substantial question of law. Accordingly, appeal is not maintainable.
The petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act, dealing with milk and milk products. As part of its business, the petitioner processes and sells, flavoured milk, to customers within and outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Bombay HC ruled GST authorities can’t be blamed for no GST RFD 03 if SCN issued but restored the refund application, imposing ₹2L cost for non-compliance.
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 22.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the order dated 31.03.2024 issued u/s. 148A(d) of the Act.
Directions are given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Visakato Aureliano Fernandez Vs. State of Goa and others in respect of the strict implementation of the provisions of PoSH Act.
