CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that a company can transfer and utilize CENVAT credit between its Central Excise and service tax accounts, citing judicial precedent from the Gujarat High Court.
After completion of the process, a Resolution Plan was submitted by the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA). The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the plan with the requisite majority under Section 30(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
NCLT Cuttack held that time of filing of CIRP application and not time of admission of application has to be considered for requisite threshold amount u/s. 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, GST debit-note and payment done after filing of application cannot be considered.
Assessee’s remedy lied in recovering the amounts wrongly disbursed through the liquidation process, with the liquidator assisting in such recovery. Upon full satisfaction of the 1st Respondent’s dues, the attachment should stand vacated.
Supreme Court held that once exports are genuine and fall within the notified category, inadvertent mistakes of procedure cannot be treated as fatal, especially where they are corrected under statutory authority. Thus, appeal allowed. Accordingly, benefit of MEIS allowed.
The Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in UAE. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that this is a fake certificate, this certificate would conclusively prove that the imported goods originated from UAE.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license upheld since Customs House Agent [CHA] violated regulation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as failed to verify importer’s credentials.
Madras High Court refused to interfere in order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing stoppage of increment of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since there is no perversity in the orders. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that claim of petitioner to be treated as Additional Commissioner while being posted at ITAT so as to grant the higher salary cannot be accepted since nothing brought on record stating that duties of higher nature were performed.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely on account of non-prosecution by the assessee without disposing off on merits is not justifiable. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
