Supreme Court held that the CBEC circular was not contrary to the intent of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Thus, the show cause notice is not defective and unenforceable. However, the order of the Commissioner regarding the value of the goods sold to the Assessee’s sister concerns is in consonance with the Court’s earlier judgments and CBEC Circular.
It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.
Supreme Court: In a special leave petition against the impugned judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby, the Court dismissed the
Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. took cognizance of a petition which was filed
Delhi High Court: Jasmeet Singh, J. did not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by Delhi Police to a restaurant
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of PS Dinesh and Anant Pamana Hegde, JJ. rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., expressed that, merely because there was a delay
by Bishwajit Dubey*, Shatrajit Banerji** and Prafful Goyal***
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the impugned assessment order under Section 147 read with
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kumar, CJ and Sameer Kureshi, J. allowed the writ petition and set aside the
Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma, J., held that once a document comes to be duly registered, it becomes a fait accompli. In
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the respondents
Securities and Exchange Board of India- Ananta Barua, Whole Time Member, while agreeing with the Enquiry Report, restrained SIC Stocks and Services
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT): The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), while dismissing the
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Navin Chawla, JJ., noted the mandatory condition provided under Section 144B (7) of
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal in which the issue before the Tribunal
NHRC, India issued a notice on 24-02-2021 to the Union Ministry of Defence, through its Secretary, to show cause why Rs 5
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI): Dr Mukulita Vijayawargiya (Whole Time Member, IBBI) disposed of a show-cause notice issued to a
Blacklisting can effectively lead to the civil death of a person.