Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods which are not subjected to Bureau of Indian Standards (

The Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Zuric Traders v The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Delhi and Anr [W.P.(C) 13911/2021 dated July 15, 2022] quashed the letter issued by the Revenue department for blocking assessee's ba

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of M/s Sridhar v the Superintendent of GST [Crl. O.P. No.7736 of 2022 dated June 6, 2022] dismissed the petition alleging the harassment by the Superintendent of Goods and Services Tax.

The CESTAT, Ahmedabad in the matter of M/s. CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD v C.C.E. & S.T.-VADODARA-I [Excise Appeal No. 10100 of 2020 dated June 24, 2022] has held that assessee is not liable for payment of either excise duty or cenvat credit under Rule 6(3)

The AAAR, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of M/s Deputy Commissioner, CGST & C.EX. Division-2 [Order No- UP/AAAR/01/2022 dated May 23, 2022] upheld the AAR order and stated that Goods and Services Tax ("GST") shall not levied on extra packs of cigarette

The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of M/sYogender Yadav v Union of India [CRM-M-53014 OF 2021 dated February 15, 2022] granted relief to a Chartered Accountant and held that judicial incarceration may not be prolonged, as it would

The AAR, Karnataka in the matter of M/s. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board [Advance Ruling No. KAR ADRG 17/2022, dated July 01, 2022]has held that the Central and State Board are considered as educational institution for the purpose of

The amount spent on cost of improvements to make the property habitable allowable as deduction and indexation while computing the capital gains however the amount spent on personal effects such as refrigerator, air conditioner LED, TVS furniture, din

Section 271(1)(c) cast responsibility upon the AO to reach the clear finding with respect to levy of penalty under the specific charge and if the AO fails to do so then the penalty cannot be levied as such penalty order shall not be maintainable in t

In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court explained term "Existence of Dispute" and used under provisions of Section 8 of the IBC,2016 related to  "Operational Debt".