The Supreme Court granted four weeks to explore settlement in a dispute arising from High Court directions requiring timely payment of panel counsel bills by the Income Tax Department.
The court declined to modify earlier directions requiring prompt payment of counsel bills, holding that procedural checks cannot justify delays and interest must be paid for late payments.
The Court held that seizure of ₹1 crore in cash during GST searches was unlawful because authorities failed to record “reason to believe” as required under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision refusing specific performance after finding that the sale agreement appeared to be a sham document executed as security for a loan.
The Madras High Court held that reopening an assessment after four years is invalid where the assessee had already disclosed all material facts during the original scrutiny assessment.
The Tribunal declined to treat the retail outlet price as the assessable value under valuation rules, noting that the Department’s case relied on grounds not properly established in the notice.
The High Court held that cancellation of GST registration without granting a personal hearing violates Section 75(4) of the GST Act. The order was quashed and the authority was directed to reconsider the matter after hearing the taxpayer.
The Madras High Court set aside execution of a ₹34.5 lakh MSME award, holding that the creditor’s claim stood extinguished because it was not submitted during the CIRP and was absent from the approved resolution plan.
The Supreme Court ordered a pan-India examination of undertrial production before courts and sought responses from all High Courts, police chiefs, and prison authorities.
The Tribunal remanded disputes over denied CENVAT credit and export of services after noting that documentary verification and disclosure of the departmental report were necessary.
