The High Court granted interim relief to a contractor after observing that the determination of the Delhi Jal Board’s status under the CGST Act will decide whether GST applies at 12% or 18%.
The High Court found that the taxpayer attempted to obtain a second refund despite already receiving the amount earlier. The Court set aside the order granting refund and imposed ₹5 lakh costs for misrepresentation.
The Court ruled that when an assessee certifies stock statements given to a bank as accurate and consistent with books, discrepancies can justify tax additions. The explanation that the figures were inflated merely to obtain higher credit was rejected.
The ITAT Gauhati ruled that relief under Section 89(1) cannot be denied solely because Form 10E was not filed before the due date. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive tax relief where eligibility is otherwise established.
The High Court set aside an assessment order issued against a deceased taxpayer. It held that once the department knows of the death, proceedings must continue only against the legal heirs.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea to prohibit Kambala in areas like Bengaluru, noting that the Supreme Court has already upheld the legality of state amendments allowing such traditional sports.
Supreme Court held that dismissal of public servant [police officer] on the basis of presumption without department inquiry under Article 311(2) proviso (b) of the Constitution of India is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, order of dismissal is liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court held that the privy purses and other privileges granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Princely States were the direct outcome of political and contractual arrangements.
Supreme Court held that mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income of their parents.
CESTAT Delhi held that bona fide classification of goods doesn’t result into willful suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period of limitation not justified. Thus, order deserves to be set aside and appeal is allowed.
