The court held that passing an assessment order without granting personal hearing violates principles of natural justice. It set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The issue was whether LIC premium payments for post-retirement annuity were contingent liabilities. The Court held they represented an existing liability and allowed the deduction as a business expense.
The court held that recovery proceedings cannot continue without considering the taxpayer’s objections. Authorities must decide representations before enforcing attachment.
The case involved denial of remaining depreciation where machinery was used for a short period. The Court held that balance depreciation can be claimed in the subsequent year to ensure parity.
The case involved denial of ITC based on limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act. The Court held that the retrospective amendment introducing Section 16(5) allowed ITC within an extended timeline. It ruled that orders rejecting ITC solely on limitation grounds were unsustainable.
A petition concerning money laundering, illegal mining and granite quarrying was dismissed as the Court found sufficient averments disclosing cognizable offence against assessee
The court held that seizure and prohibition orders cannot continue without a confiscation proposal. The absence of such proceedings led to quashing of the orders.
The Court examined a challenge to an assessment order involving ITC reversal and interest liability. It held that failure to exercise statutory options for reduced penalty justified dismissal of the writ.
Madras High Court held that money laundering offense is independent from predicate offense. Thus, conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and subsequent Prevention of Money Laundering Act prosecution doesn’t constitute double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.
Madras High Court held that refund claim filed is rightly rejected since differential customs duty was paid voluntarily and not under protest during DRI [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] investigation and closure of proceeding was requested by importer. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
