Latest court orders, judgments, and legal developments from Indian courts — AI-curated and summarized.
CESTAT Hyderabad has upheld penalties against a managing partner for customs violations, reinforcing individual liability in corporate customs infractions. This ruling clarifies accountability for customs compliance.
CAAR Mumbai has reclassified Pelaforce EMA1170 under CTH 1302, making it eligible for customs benefits under Notification No. 45/2025-Customs. This modification provides a significant duty exemption for relevant imports.
The Patna High Court quashed an ex parte GST assessment because the hearing notice was improperly uploaded under an incorrect tab on the portal, denying the petitioner a fair hearing.
The Bombay High Court quashed a GST show cause notice, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining a three-month gap as mandated by Section 73 of the GST Act.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that consolidated GST show cause notices under Section 74 are permissible, overturning a previous Single Judge's decision. The court remitted the matter for further proceedings.
The Delhi High Court ruled that exporters can rectify GSTR-3B and address related GSTR-2A mismatches despite technical limitations, ensuring compliance with GST regulations.
The Delhi High Court quashed reassessment proceedings on the grounds that the taxpayer's bank accounts and transactions were previously examined during the original scrutiny assessment, setting a precedent for similar cases.
The Telangana High Court has quashed a municipal order that added new property tax penalties in a final notice, ruling that the taxpayer must be given an opportunity to respond to such allegations beforehand.
The CESTAT set aside a service tax demand of Rs. 2.31 crore concerning a technology licensing agreement with Skoda, determining it did not qualify as consulting engineer service.
CESTAT ruled that automotive gears should be classified under 'Gears and Gearing' instead of under motor-vehicle parts, leading to the setting aside of Toyota's customs demand.
The CESTAT has quashed an excise demand of Rs. 3.41 crore against Cipla, ruling it time-barred. The decision hinged on the requirement for full disclosure of annual differential refunds which precluded the invocation of the extended limitation period.
The Madras High Court ruled that a disparity between GSTR-1 reported values and seigniorage fees justifies the issuance of notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act. This ruling provides clarity on the enforcement of tax compliance standards.