Tripura High Court granted leave to challenge release of seized gold after noting that confiscation orders had already been upheld by appellate authorities and CESTAT. The Court held that the trial court’s release order prima facie contradicted those finalized confiscation proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from a conveyance relating to office premises satisfied the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Gujarat High Court held that a GST cancellation notice lacking material particulars cannot sustain cancellation proceedings. The Court restored the registration after finding both the notice and cancellation order vague and non-speaking.
The Tripura High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding prima facie non-compliance with section 169 of the CGST Act regarding service of the adjudication order.
The Bombay High Court held that importers under CIF contracts cannot be taxed under reverse charge for ocean freight since they are not recipients of the transportation service. The Court quashed the show cause notice and ruled the levy beyond statutory charging provisions.
The High Court quashed the GST cancellation proceedings after finding that the show cause notice did not specify the alleged contraventions or shortcomings. The Court held that absence of material particulars violated the prescribed procedure under GST law.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that the taxpayer’s detailed reply and supporting documents were not considered before passing the order. The Court directed fresh adjudication through a reasoned order.
