HC held that notice is needed to be served to assessee under Rule 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) before physical inspection is carried out.
HC quashed and set aside demand notice and assessment order making an addition of INR 92.42 crores without providing the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Held that, the Revenue Department should make assessments following the provisions of Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 in order to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
CESTAT, Chennai, ruled that customs brokers cannot be held liable for the undervaluation of goods. The court held that the valuation of goods is determined by the contract between the exporter and importer, and customs brokers do not have any influence in this matter.
HC directed the investigating officer to issue advance notice of 72 hours to the assessee to effect the arrest if necessary, after investigation in a case. Further directed the assessee to co-operate in the matter and produce the materials as sought.
HC set aside order passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing officer. Held that, the Tribunal was incorrect in remanding back the matter, when all the material was before it thus, it should have dealt with each of the material and decided the same.
HC held that SCN and order for cancellation of GST Registration is not sustainable on the grounds that the order was passed without any personal hearing and thus, cryptic in nature. Further directed the Revenue Department to restore the GST registration of assessee.
AAR ruled that Royalty amount is includable while arriving at the transaction value for payment of applicable GST on the supply of services rendered by the assessee to the main contractor under Section 15 of CGST Act and 18% GST is applicable on Royalty amount under RCM.
AAR ruled that no GST will be chargeable on the hiring of a transportation vehicle by a Goods Transportation Agency (GTA) and also has no liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM).
AAR ruled that the Notification amending the tax rate from 18% to 12% on Composite Supply of Works Contract can only be applied prospectively, if an enactment does not expressly provides that it should be deemed to have come into effect form a past date.
HC held that SCN that does not contain reason to justify cancellation of registration therefore, is violative of principles of natural justice and needs to be quashed.
