Siddharth Enterprises Vs Nodal Officer (Gujarat High Court) 1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The order passed by this Court dated 22nd December 2021 reads thus: “1. We have heard Mr. […]
We request the authority concerned to take a practical view of the problems which the assessees are facing as on date on account of the technical glitches in the portal. The authority should not overlook this fact and try to solve the problems or rather ease the difficulties which the assessees are facing.
Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court) The short point that falls for our consideration is, whether the customs cargo service provider (respondent no.3 herein) is entitled to charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector […]
Rule 86A itself has provided that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for a period of one year. On expiry of a period of one year, it would automatically get unblocked. In fact, it was the duty of the authority concerned to permit the assessee, i.e. the writ-applicant, to avail the input credit available in his ledger
Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed without issuance of a show cause notice and mandatory draft assessment order, the impugned order passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained.
S.P. Eswaramurthy Vs Government of Tamil nadu (Madras High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the idol in the ancient temple called Arulmighu Paramasivan Swamy Thirukkoil, Siviyarpalayam, Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District was stolen. Subsequently, that was retrieved by the Police and thereafter it was produced before the concerned Court ie., the Special Court […]
Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Meghalaya High Court) The present matter is governed by Rule 117 of the CGST Rules of 2017. Thus, on plain reading of the Rule, a registered person who has submitted a declaration electronically in the relevant form is entitled to revise the declaration and file it afresh […]
The petitioner is permitted to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from today; pursuant to the petitioner filing the said form, respondents would consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
We form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.
Coursera Inc Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner in its application for certificate under section 197 dated 23.09.2021 describes itself as an e-platform operator. In the later part of the same application the petitioner claims itself to be a university for the purposes of article 12(5)(c) of the DTAA between India and United States […]
