Calcutta High Court held that GST Circular issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs [CBIC] are binding on all the departmental officers but at the same time circular should not be treated as shield to ward off legal scrutiny and shelve legal action in cases involving undisclosed transaction, and/or dubious invoices and bills.
The High Court held that the Tribunal misapplied the law on presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C by wrongly shifting the burden to the Revenue. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Rejecting objections on non-existence of the arbitration clause, the court applied the doctrine of separability. Arbitration was held maintainable despite termination or expiry of the main contract.
The issue was whether a bank’s empanelled advocate could face criminal trial for an allegedly flawed legal scrutiny report. The High Court held that in the absence of evidence of conspiracy or wrongful gain, prosecution could not continue.
The Calcutta High Court held that once an arbitral award attains finality, the award amount must be paid in full without deduction of tax at source.
The High Court held that even in ex parte proceedings, the appellate authority must consider appeal grounds. The matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.
The High Court found prima facie vagueness in a GST show-cause notice that failed to specify missing documents and questioned whether Section 74 jurisdiction was validly invoked. Coercive recovery based on the adjudication order was stayed pending further hearing.
The High Court held that customs authorities lawfully extended the time under Section 110(2) before expiry, making the later show-cause notice valid and negating the claim for return of seized gold and cash.
The court examined whether pre-deposit under Section 112 could be enforced when the GST Tribunal was not yet functional. It held that the statutory requirement of pre-deposit still applies and upheld the interim direction.
The High Court held that company land cannot be attached under PMLA merely because accused persons are shareholders. Shareholding does not confer ownership over corporate assets.
