The Madras High Court held that Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel GST proceedings on the same subject matter already examined by Central authorities and remanded the matter for overlap verification.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unlocking and activating mobile phones before export only amounted to product configuration and not “use” under the Drawback Rules. The Tribunal therefore quashed confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the exporter.
ITAT Delhi held that the assessee was covered under the search proceedings even though its name did not specifically appear in the panchnama because the warrant referred to “& Ors.” The Tribunal therefore upheld jurisdiction under Section 153A.
Bangalore ITAT ruled that only solar days and not cumulative man-days should be considered while determining the existence of a Permanent Establishment under the India-Saudi Arabia DTAA. Since the assessee’s stay was only 90 days, no PE was held to exist in India.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section 154. The Tribunal ruled that issues requiring detailed factual examination cannot be treated as mistakes apparent from record.
SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue share. Court noted that such income could not be taxed again in member’s hands.
Kerala High Court held that interception of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction of its declared destination constituted a strong prima facie circumstance supporting GST detention proceedings. The writ petition challenging the detention was dismissed.
The Gujarat High Court held that arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was valid as the petitioner had been supplied with the “reasons to believe” and grounds of arrest. The Court ruled that verbatim signed copies were not mandatory.
The ITAT Amritsar held that a valuation report by itself cannot justify addition under Section 69 without evidence of extra payment. The Tribunal deleted the addition after finding no proof of on-money beyond the registered sale deed value.
The Court held that the petitioner had no connection with the entities or individuals from whose devices the disputed material was recovered. The reassessment notices were set aside for lack of nexus.
