Merely GST refund claim on the basis of averments not suffice unless & until the said claim assesse is corroborated by documentary evidence.
Nitin Goyal Vs State of Haryana (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The allegations against the petitioner are of cheating the State by claiming input credit through fake invoices by using fake addresses of the firms created through different proprietors and defrauded the State to the extent of more than Rs. One crore. A perusal of […]
Bharat Gordhandas Patel Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) HC allows bail for GST related offence on deposit of Rs. 10 Lakh in Six Instalments and held that even on allegations of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and whether bail is granted or […]
In cheque Bounce case arraigning of the sole proprietary concern rather was a condition precedent for making the complaint well constituted, as it becomes the principal offender, and, with its remaining un-impleaded, as such, the absence of its impleadment cannot make the instant complaint to be well constituted, nor, any valid prosecution can in its absence, be drawn, even against the accused petitioner, who can be assigned only a vicarious liability alongwith it.
CGST authorities and SGST authorities would consider Petitioner’s case sympathetically when it comes to interest and penalty. Unless they have some other reason, Petitioner should not be saddled with interest and penalty.
HC remanded back the matter to the assessing authority for reconsidering the refund claimed by the assessee noting that refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of inverted duty structure (IDS) is allowed where the goods have been supplied under concessional rate notification.
HC held that attempt by CIT to exclude a genuine disputant of tax liability, like petitioner, from possibility of settlement under VSV Act is extremely hyper-technical.
SAT Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Suspension of GST registration without opportunity of being heard- HC issues notice to Centre/State Govts Petitioner submitted that the original Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 provided that a party shall be given a reasonable opportunity of […]
While the seized betel nuts are not required for the purpose of investigation, as is apparent from the report of the I.O., the grounds, so assigned for rejection of zimma petition, filed by the petitioner, by the learned court below, seems to be not in conformity with the law, so laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2002.
Petitioner never claimed higher draw back. Mistakenly suffix ‘A’ was included instead of ‘B’ but draw back claimed was same as custom component
