Customs Department could not have relied upon Circular No. 35/2017-Customs dated 16 August 2017 to outrightly deny assessee’s request for provisional release, particularly when such reliance had been held to be contrary to the statutory provisions under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore void. Hence, ordered for provision release of the the imported multi-functional printer and photocopier Machine on deposit of 50% of the applicable duty.
Where show-cause notice (SCN) that initiated the proceeding did not specifically state or propose that the cancellation would be from a an earlier, retrospective date, the cancellation of the registration should be considered effective only from the date of the show-cause notice.
Delhi High Court held that taxpayers must approach GST Appellate Authority to contest adjudication orders, rejecting arguments that replies ignored at adjudication cannot be considered in appeal.
The final order passed by the tax authority, however, cancelled assessee’s registration with retrospective effect. Assessee’s main argument was that this action was illegal because the SCN never mentioned or proposed a retrospective cancellation; it only proposed a simple cancellation.
Delhi High Court held that addition of demonetization cash deposit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit rightly deleted by CIT(A) since source of deposit duly explained with documentary evidence. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that CLAT(PG) examination is conducted for purposes of making admission to Post Graduate courses and not for offering public employment. Accordingly, NHAI recruitment criteria on the merit in CLAT (PG) is legally untenable and hence quashed.
Delhi High Court confirmed that businesses must reduce prices to pass on GST rate cuts to consumers, rejecting claims that increased quantity or free products justify price retention. The profiteering amount was directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Delhi High Court confirms GST Appellate Authority’s full power under Sec. 107(11) to re-adjudicate refund claims, consider new evidence, and prevent inconsistent, piecemeal orders.
Delhi High Court held that seized amount is prima facie proceeds of crime and not lawful income hence to treat such amounts as taxable income recoverable by the Income Tax Department, prior to the conclusion of the PMLA trial or adjudication, would be erroneous. Accordingly, petition dismissed.
Delhi High Court affirmed a ₹10 lakh fine on freight forwarder Ravindra Kumar for aiding illegal export of CITES-protected Red Sanders. Court rejected a larger penalty.
