CESTAT Mumbai held that accumulated credit of Education Cess, SHE Cess, and KKC cannot be transitioned or refunded because these levies were not subsumed under the GST regime.
FTI Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. Vs MGF Developments Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi) The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Delhi, considered an appeal challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, which had rejected a Section 9 application filed by the appellant seeking initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution […]
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A after the Managing Director admitted availing ITC on blocked invoices during inspection. The Court ruled that such admission weakened the taxpayer’s challenge to the department’s action.
The High Court permitted the taxpayer to file an appeal despite delay after noting that the assessment order was served through deemed service on the common portal. The appeal must be filed with a 25% deposit of the disputed tax.
CESTAT Bangalore held that revocation of a Customs Broker license is a harsh penalty that requires clear proof of involvement in fraud. In the absence of such evidence, the tribunal set aside the license revocation but retained a penalty.
The Gauhati High Court held that the second FIR disclosed additional and distinct offences beyond the earlier complaint. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed under the test of sameness.
The Tribunal ruled that a bona fide technical mistake in selecting the wrong section code while applying for registration cannot lead to rejection of the application. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Exemption) for reconsideration on merits.
The Madras High Court quashed the rejection of a condonation application, holding that the delay in filing Form 10B had a reasonable explanation. The Court directed reconsideration of exemption under Section 11.
The Madras High Court quashed a GST order passed after the assessee failed to reply to a show cause notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication. The court allowed reconsideration subject to a 10% pre-deposit of the disputed tax.
The Tribunal found that the importer had sought first-check examination and the Chartered Engineers report confirmed the declared description of goods. As a result, allegations of mis-declaration and consequent penalties were held unsustainable.
