The Petitioner is an Indonesian Company, having its manufacturing plants in Indonesia. It manufactures Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF) and had exported Viscose Staple Fibres (VSF) to its customers in India.
Calcutta High Court held that SEBI cannot be forced to hand over documents to the accused. Accordingly, allowing petition u/s. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as preferred by the accused is not sustainable.
Calcutta High Court sets aside GST penalty for non-physical delivery challan, emphasizing no tax evasion intent and digital document availability.
CESTAT Delhi held that it is rightly concluded that the foreign origin cigarettes are smuggled since the assessee failed to produce any documents proving that the cigarettes seized were validly imported. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Chennai held that interest on Extra Duty Deposit not payable by revenue since lapses were on the part of importer in not submitting complete document enabling revenue to finalize assessment. Accordingly, appeal disposed of.
Orissa High Court rules a reconstituted GSTAT Selection Committee can initiate a de novo process for appointments, absent specific statutory restrictions in the GSTAT Appointment Rules, 2023.
Delhi High Court held that custody under Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act [NDPS] without any authority and without producing him before the concerned Magistrate or Special Court within 24 hours is completely illegal. Accordingly, present bail application allowed.
Patna High Court held that passing of order by CIT(A) without following the directions given vide judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court amounts to gross negligence if not a case of dereliction in duty. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored back.
Gauhati High Court directed reimbursement of Value Added Tax paid on Raw Petroleum Coke purchased within the State of Assam in accordance with the provisions of Section 15[b] of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The cancellation of registration under Section 12AB was not justified as PCIT lacked jurisdiction and that the “specified violation” clause under Section 12AB(4) was inapplicable for the financial years in question.
