The Court held that producing an accused before a Magistrate in another State without obtaining transit remand rendered the detention illegal. The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards in GST-related arrests.
The High Court set aside the order rejecting ITC after finding that the taxpayer s case required examination under Section 16(5) of the CGST Act. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Delhi ITAT held that the full value of unaccounted sales cannot automatically be treated as taxable income. It restricted the addition to an estimated profit element of 3% on the sales detected during the search.
Addition of capital gain was deleted as impugned land being agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and having retained its agricultural character, was outside the ambit of “capital asset” under section 2(14)(iii) and therefore no capital gains could have been charged on transfer thereof.
The Telangana High Court declined to examine the merits of GST refund rejection orders and directed the taxpayer to avail the statutory appellate remedy. The Court clarified that delay condonation applications should be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law.
The Telangana High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST appellate order due to delay and the availability of an alternate statutory remedy. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the GST Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed window period after complying with the pre-deposit requirement.
The Telangana High Court dealt with a case where a taxpayer’s GST registration was cancelled for non-filing of returns and the subsequent appeal was rejected as time-barred. The Court granted liberty to seek revocation before the proper authority, emphasizing that statutory remedies may still be pursued subject to compliance with legal requirements.
The Telangana High Court upheld termination of a government employee whose degree lacked UGC recognition during the relevant study period. The Court held that absence of an essential educational qualification strikes at the root of eligibility and cannot be cured by equitable considerations.
The ITAT held that investments which did not generate exempt income during the year cannot be considered for Rule 8D disallowance. The ruling reiterates that only income-yielding investments are relevant for Section 14A computation.
The Bangalore CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed under the CBLR after finding no admissible evidence that the Customs Broker had neglected its due diligence obligations. The Tribunal held that mere occurrence of illegal export could not establish regulatory violations without supporting proof.
