Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification, the Court found no ground to grant bail and there were no substantial change in circumstances had been shown.
The Bombay High Court set aside a settlement order where the department adjusted a refund of one tax period against dues of another under the MVAT Amnesty Scheme.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the provision applies only when dishonour is linked to insufficient funds or lack of arrangement.
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
The Bombay High Court set aside a GST adjudication order because verification reports relied upon by the authorities were not furnished to the taxpayer. The court held that denying access to such reports violates principles of natural justice and ordered a fresh hearing.
The court held that although the defendant established title through a court auction purchase, injunction could not be granted as possession on the date of the suit was not proved.
The Court set aside a GST assessment order based on an ITC mismatch after the taxpayer claimed the seller failed to upload invoice details. Fresh assessment was allowed subject to deposit of 10% of disputed tax.
The court held that when an importer claims that a licence is not required under a notification, authorities must first consider the representation on merits. Customs were directed to provide a hearing and pass a reasoned order before refusing clearance.
