Madras High Court held that countervailing duty [CVD] is not leviable on vessels that are imported into India prior to notification no. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 which is later converted from foreign-run to coastal run. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Court found a major discrepancy between GST returns, income tax declarations, and bank receipts, ordering a forensic audit before fixing liability and remanding the matter for fresh assessment.
ITAT held that penalties under sections 271D and 271E cannot survive once the underlying additions are deleted. The ruling confirms that penalties collapse with the quantum.
Calcutta High Court held that Look Out Circular is quashed since the investigation is going on and no interim report is submitted. Thus, as on date there is no cognizable case initiated against petitioner under the Indian Penal Code.
Alleged additions for suppressed sales, disallowances, and capital gains were rendered void once the revision order was quashed. The case underscores the doctrine of consequential invalidity.
ITAT Pune held that penalty not leviable under section 270A of the Income Tax Act since show cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb u/s. 270A(9) under which the penalty was imposed. Accordingly, penalty is quashed and appeal is allowed.
Gujarat High Court held that amendment/ rectification of inadvertent error in GST returns [Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B] is permissible if no loss to revenue would be caused. Accordingly, petition is allowed and returns are permitted to be amended.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a special audit under Section 142(2A) cannot stand where the mandatory approval lacks a DIN. The absence of DIN renders the approval non-existent in law, making the entire proceedings void from inception.
The court held that rejection of IGST refund interest on jurisdictional grounds could not defeat a diligent claim and allowed the taxpayer to approach the GST appellate authority without facing limitation hurdles.
NCLAT upheld rejection of a claim filed nearly three years late during liquidation. The ruling confirms that inordinate delays without valid explanation cannot be condoned.
