The High Court held that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease or licence holders paying royalty, not to offenders paying compounding fines. ITAT’s demand of TCS, interest, and penalty was set aside.
The Court declined bail after finding prima facie material showing active involvement in an alleged illegal coal levy network. The ruling underscores a stricter approach to bail in serious economic offences.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against a GST adjudication order, holding that a statutory appeal was available. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists.
The court held that additions for excess stock and cash cannot be sustained when based solely on a survey statement under Section 133A, reaffirming that such statements lack conclusive evidentiary value.
The issue was whether the appellate authority relied on fresh evidence without following Rule 46A. The High Court upheld deletion of the addition, holding that all documents were already on record before the Assessing Officer.
The Court held that allegations were based on documents already seized, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Anticipatory bail was granted considering the nature of evidence and limited statutory punishment.
Chhattisgarh High Court allows the bail application in Rs. 4000 Crore liquor scam case in the absence of any distinguishing material against the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 50/2023-Customs merely because the petitioner did not adopt the LoC route is impermissible in fiscal jurisprudence. Accordingly, benefit granted as petitioner satisfied clause (i) of condition no. 6 of said notification.
The dispute concerned service tax liability proposed in an SCN. The Court held that extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked at this stage and directed the petitioner to pursue adjudication remedies.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that there is no illegality or irregularity in sanctioning loans on the same day since no rule prohibited such sanction. The prosecution has not established any dishonest intention on the part of the Branch Manager at the time of sanctioning the loan.
