The Calcutta High Court held that amounts already deposited with CGST authorities, not linked to any outstanding liability, must be treated as compliance with statutory pre-deposit. The appellate dismissal for non-compliance was set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement of witness recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant since procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act is not followed. Accordingly, penalty imposed u/s. 112(a) is set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as relevant as the procedure contemplated under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Thus, penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) cannot be sustained.
The Court refused to entertain the writ petition, holding that appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was the proper remedy. Filing issues do not override statutory appeal provisions.
The High Court recorded that the new PAN had been cancelled and directed the petitioner to apply for restoration of the old PAN. The Income Tax Department was asked to provide a copy of the cancellation order.
The Court held that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, a provisional attachment automatically lapses after one year and cannot be continued.
The High Court held that omission of Rule 96(10) without a saving clause applies to all pending cases. Refund claims for IGST paid on exports were directed to be processed.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the writ petition citing disputed facts. It directed the District Election Officer, Lucknow to verify representations and take action as per law.
The Supreme Court held that the UGC is the competent authority to determine consequences of questionable technical degrees obtained through distance education. Universities must furnish student details for further action.
The Tribunal held that mere mention of Section 112 without detailed imputation in the show cause notice cannot justify penalty. Violation of CHA Regulations alone was found insufficient to sustain penal action.
