The court held that seizure and prohibition orders cannot continue without a confiscation proposal. The absence of such proceedings led to quashing of the orders.
The Court examined a challenge to an assessment order involving ITC reversal and interest liability. It held that failure to exercise statutory options for reduced penalty justified dismissal of the writ.
Supreme Court held that section 60(4) of the Social Security Code, 2020 putting an age limit of three months on the age of the adoptive child, for the adoptive mothers to avail maternity benefit is violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution respectively. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.
F S Enterprise Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court disposed of multiple petitions through a common judgment as the facts and issues involved were substantially similar. The petitioner, a proprietary concern registered under the GST Acts, had supplied TMT bars and related goods pursuant to an order from a registered […]
The Court refused to interfere as the writ petition was filed after completion of reassessment proceedings. It held that factual disputes must be examined through statutory appeal, not writ jurisdiction.
The tribunal held that reassessment fails if no addition is made on the issue cited for reopening. Additions on unrelated grounds were declared beyond jurisdiction.
The issue was whether supply of water to vessels is a sale or a service. The Tribunal held that such supply forms part of port services and is taxable prior to 01.07.2010. It upheld the tax demand based on statutory provisions and CBEC clarification.
The Tribunal held that tenancy supported by rent receipts, bills, and agreements cannot be treated as a sham. It upheld exemption under Section 54F on surrender of tenancy rights.
The Tribunal held that absence of charitable activities at the time of application does not make a trust non-genuine. The key takeaway is that proposed activities and charitable objects must be considered for registration.
The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds used to acquire a foreign company in the same line of business is allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). It found that the acquisition was driven by commercial expediency and business expansion.
