Karnataka High Court ruled that rejecting a compassionate appointment solely because applicant is a married daughter is discriminatory. Court held that marital status is not a valid ground for exclusion under Article 14. It directed Bank to reconsider case based on actual dependency and financial hardship.
Karnataka High Court set aside a FEMA show-cause notice and complaint issued after Section 6(3)(b) of Act was omitted by Finance Act, 2015. Court ruled that proceedings based on a non-existent provision are void ab initio. It reaffirmed that, without a saving clause, authorities lack jurisdiction to act under an omitted section.
Karnataka High Court directed that no coercive measures be taken against borrowers until their recall plea is decided by DRT. Court emphasized that issues of improper service of notice must be adjudicated before recovery is enforced. The ruling safeguards borrowers’ right to be heard in debt recovery proceedings.
Karnataka High Court held that Enforcement Directorate cannot attach assets mortgaged to banks under SARFAESI Act. Court found that such properties, acquired through lawful bank loans, are not proceeds of crime. It reaffirmed that secured creditors’ recovery rights under SARFAESI override PMLA proceedings where the bank is a victim, not a beneficiary.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in terms of Rule 25 of the SEZ Rules, SEZ developer not utilizing the goods or services on which exemptions, drawbacks, cess and concession have been availed needs to refund the concessions so availed.
The Supreme Court dismissed Arham Infra Developers’ petitions against GST assessments, holding that alternate statutory appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act must be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction.
These Public Interest Litigations are filed by the petitioners substantially seeking the relief of including the petrol and diesel under the GST regime so as to achieve a harmonized national market as contemplated under Article 279 (A) of the Constitution of India.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the interest on nonrecoverable loans has not been recorded by the assessee and accordingly no deduction under section 80P of the Income Tax Act was claimed. Thus, addition made thereon is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Chandigarh held that reopening of assessment on the basis of factually incorrect facts and reasons without application of mind and without verification of facts cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, reopening quashed and appeal of revenue dismissed.
The amendment to Explanation 1(d) of Rule 43 of the CGST Rules, 2017, effected vide Notification No. 14/2022 – Central Tax dated 05.07.2022, was prospective in nature, therefore, any claim for ITC made in respect of periods antecedent to the notification could not be sustained.
