The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
Tripura High Court granted leave to challenge release of seized gold after noting that confiscation orders had already been upheld by appellate authorities and CESTAT. The Court held that the trial court’s release order prima facie contradicted those finalized confiscation proceedings.
CESTAT Mumbai held that a mere demand notice cannot replace the statutory show cause notice required under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that recovery proceedings initiated without proper notice were legally unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the Settlement Commission’s duty calculations did not establish any CVD component for certain advance licences, making the corresponding credit claim unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that an appeal dismissed ex-parte by NFAC should still be decided on merits under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication after granting one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from a conveyance relating to office premises satisfied the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Supreme Court upheld restoration of original Committee of Creditors and ruled that IRP could not independently reclassify financial creditors after constitution of CoC under IBC framework.
CESTAT Chennai held that Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies only when goods are consumed by the assessee or on its behalf. Since the plastic caps were used by the principal manufacturer and not captively consumed by the job worker, the duty demand was set aside.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the appellate authority failed to consider pending writ petitions and interim directions of the Bombay High Court regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(via). The matter was remanded for reconsideration after final disposal of the writ petitions.
The ITAT Chennai held that exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied merely because Form 10B was not filed along with the return, when it was available before processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal directed CPC to amend the intimation and consider the audit report.
