The Court directed release of seized areca nuts upon deposit of Rs.5.23 lakh, noting the goods were perishable and ownership was undisputed. The deposit will abide by the outcome of the pending writ petition.
Calcutta High Court held that violation of principles of natural justice and erroneous order cannot be reason for bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal under section 76 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Value Added Tax Regulation, 2017. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
The High Court set aside an ex parte GST order after finding lack of proper service and denial of hearing. It held that mandatory opportunity under Section 75 must be granted before adverse determination.
The High Court upheld deletion of ₹7.26 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that PAN, bank statements and audited financials established identity and creditworthiness. Suspicion without evidence was held insufficient.
The Court held that allegations of forged extension and duress require factual examination by the Adjudicating Authority, maintaining status quo on seized gold and cash.
The High Court denied bail, holding that serious allegations of loan diversion through shell entities were supported by bank records and witness statements. The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
The High Court granted a post-decisional hearing after finding that a proper Chartered Accountant’s certificate with UDIN was not filed before the appellate authority. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to submit relevant documents.
Calcutta High Court held that Bending and Bundling services cannot be claimed under the heading Clearing and Forwarding Services. Accordingly, demand of service tax under tax bracket of Clearing and Forwarding services to that extent quashed.
The High Court quashed recovery proceedings for ITC reversal, holding that mere non-deposit of tax by the supplier is insufficient without proof of collusion, fake invoices, or lack of bona fides.
The High Court ruled that GST adjudication orders must contain detailed facts and reasons. Summary notices and orders lacking particulars were set aside as legally unsustainable.
