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.
The High Court held that ITC cannot be denied solely due to delay in claiming it after retrospective amendments to GST law. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on other conditions.
The court held that the Human Rights Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the criminal case and directing compensation against police officials.
The Madras High Court quashed a government order allotting sand dune land as an alternative site for a school, holding that such ecologically sensitive land cannot be used for development.
The Madras High Court held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where a DTAA claim was made based on a bona fide interpretation of law and full disclosure of income.
