The Delhi High Court holds that the challenge to GST notifications extending time limits for Section 73 adjudication orders must await the Supreme Court’s ruling on the validity of Section 168A extensions, noting conflicting High Court judgments.
Delhi High Court sets aside GST order for denial of hearing; directs fresh adjudication. Validity of GST time extension notifications left to Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court held that seized amounts prima facie being proceeds of crime cannot be termed as income of accused as trial in PMLA case is yet to be conclude. Accordingly, it is erroneous to treat such amount as taxable income recoverable by Income Tax Department.
Delhi High Court held that penalty duly imposed on employee of Custom House Agent [CHA] for failure to ensure clean credentials of the importer. Accordingly, appeal dismissed and order passed by CESTAT upheld.
Delhi High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s Aneeta Hada ruling, quashed criminal prosecution of Directors under Section 276. Vicarious liability requires the primary offender (Company) to be an accused.
Delhi High Court held that redemption fine needs to be waived once the tax payer has availed the benefits of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDR Scheme] and has paid the amount in terms thereof.
Delhi High Court held that Section 20 stipulates a defined mechanism for the retention of seized property or records, it is imperative that such procedure is strictly followed. Thus, retention of seized property without following procedure stipulated under section 20 of PMLA is not justifiable.
Delhi High Court has expressed some concerns in respect of the definition of the jewellery in proposed Rule 2(viii) of the Baggage Rules as also the monetary cap being retained, albeit with modification, under proposed Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Delhi High Court held that bail application in case of money laundering and fake investment scheme allowed on account of delayed trial and there being no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.
Delhi High Court held that penalty imposed on Courier Agency due to non-exercise of due-diligence since courier agency failed to notice that commercial goods were being sent under disguise of gift. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
