Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Madras High Court) As far as Section 6(2)(b) of the Act is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the State authorities issued a notice for intimating discrepancies in the return after scrutiny in proceedings dated 17.12.2020. The said proceedings would reveal that […]
B. Anandan Vs Government of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 4.2.2021 for the offence punishable u/s 132 (1) (d) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The petitioner is an Executive Director of […]
The petitioner states that he has paid the customs duty and therefore, no further tax is to be levied. Neither Sales Tax nor Entry Tax is levied for vehicles that are imported. The contention of the petitioner is that, the goods that are manufactured in India suffers payment of Excise Duty and the goods that are imported suffers Customs Duty. By questioning the levy of Entry Tax, the petitioner has prayed for an injunction restraining the respondents from collecting the Entry Tax in respect of the imported vehicle.
The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not ‘acceptable’, which itself is an objectionable phrase, can be no ground for not allowing the claim unless the decision of the appellate authority has been suspended by a competent Court. Supreme Court emphasized that if such healthy rule of judicial discipline is not followed, it would result in undue harassment to the asssessees and chaos in the administration of tax laws.
UPL Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner paid custom duty to the tune of Rs.17,25,172/- for the goods imported on 11/04/2016. Again he paid an amount to the tune of Rs.95,07,943/- on 12/04/2016 for different consignment imported by the petitioner. The petitioner was supposed to […]
Jindal Drugs Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) In this case, supply has been made by the petitioner to FTWZ for onward shipment at the behest of the purchaser, UTEXAM, to a location of its choice. This modus operandi is supported by the documentation placed on record by the petitioner. Thus, DHL […]
Saurav Gupta Vs CGST (Delhi High Court) 1. The present applications have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the annexures and duly affirmed affidavits. 2. Insofar as the filing of the certified copy of the annexures is concerned, the same is allowed […]
It was also argued that the respondent Assessing Officer has also committed an error in giving only four days’ time to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice.
If a statute provides an act to be done by a particular authority and in a particular manner, it should only be done by that authority and in that manner or not at all noted that the Respondent acted arbitrarily by withholding the refund without assigning any reason though the statute mandates for recording the same.
Jay Shree Industries Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Whether ‘redemption fine’ falls within the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, we find neither word has been defined under the Scheme or the Rules framed thereunder or the principal Act, namely the Central Excise Act, 1944. Indisputably, the […]
