Court held that once neither the alleged seller nor the broker claimed rights in the seized gold, the tribunal’s setting aside of confiscation was no longer tenable. Confiscation of gold and currency was restored, while penalty was set aside as it abated upon death.
The issue was whether disputed receivables could be recovered through NCLT during liquidation. The tribunal held that uncrystallised contractual claims fall outside Section 60(5) of the IBC.
The Court upheld rejection of a technical bid because the bidder submitted a GST clearance certificate issued by a private professional instead of the tax department. The ruling clarifies that statutory compliance certificates must come from competent government authorities when mandated by tender conditions.
The High Court quashed dismissal of a GST appeal where the authority ignored the explanation for delayed filing. The ruling stresses reasoned consideration under Section 107(4) before rejecting appeals.
The court held that testing and pairing of smart cards with set-top boxes amounted to permissible processing under Cenvat rules, not requiring reversal of credit.
The Madras High Court held that failure to follow the mandatory pre-consultative process before issuing show cause notices vitiates proceedings. Notices were set aside and matters remanded to the pre-consultation stage.
The issue was whether cash deposited during demonetisation could be treated as unexplained. The Tribunal held that when sales are supported by available stock and recorded books, cash receipts from such sales cannot be added under Section 68.
The Tribunal held that SSI concessional duty cannot be claimed where aggregate clearances in the preceding year exceeded the statutory limit. A change in manufacturer does not revive exemption eligibility for the same factory.
The court upheld confiscation of a 250 gm gold bar carried through the green channel without declaration. It ruled that misuse of the green channel and ineligibility under baggage rules justified absolute confiscation and penalty.
The Court ruled that a worn wristwatch qualifies as a passenger’s personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016. Customs authorities were directed to release the detained watch as its seizure was held unsustainable.
