Flair Writing Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Gujarat High Court issued the notice to Government over constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of CGST Act, 2017. The subject matter of challenge in the present litigation is to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 50 of the […]
The Hon’ble High Court concluded that order passed by JCCT Appeals cannot be said erroneous. Also concluded that the position adopted by ADC is not in line with KVAT Laws where the order passed by ADC was based on assumption that the benefit of refund of tax paid on purchase of Inputs can be granted only in respect of manufacture and processing of goods which is not at all prescribed under the law. Accordingly, there is no justification on the part of ADC in invoking revisional power u/s 64 (1) of the KVAT Act.
BGR Mining & Infra Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in respect of the issue of levy of interest under Section 50 of the Act on the gross tax liability as upheld in appeal by the Respondent Joint Commissioner of State Sales […]
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. Vs State of Assam (Gauhati High Court) The Rule 29 of the Assam Value Added Tax Rules 2005 provides that a claim for refund as provided under Section 50(1) of the AVAT Act, 2003 shall be made in Form 37 within 180 (one hundred and eighty days) from the date of […]
Mehrunnisa Mohamed Fazal Maniar Vs ITO (Gujrat High Court) The case on hand is not a case where the Income Tax Officer seeks to draw any fresh inference which could have been raised at the time of the original assessment on the basis of the materials placed before him by the assessee relating to the […]
Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant submits that the stay application has also been filed way back in the July, 2020.
If assessee calculated Light Dues in respect of the Vessel correctly and remitted the correct amount, then Section 19 of the Act, 1927 could not be resorted to withhold an erroneous double payment or dual payment made by a citizen due to a system error or failure. The State was not expected to get itself unduly enriched by erroneous or forced or inadvertent payments of money made by its citizens and was not expected to bring in defence of limitation in respect of such payments resulting in unjust enrichment.
But the moot question raised in the writ petition is whether a provisional attachment of bank account can be continued beyond the period of one year?
UP And UP Elevators Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Undisputedly, goods which were sought to be transported from Bangalore to Cherthala came to be intercepted by the GST authorities on 15.01.2021 and at that time, the authorities found that e-way bill had expired on 14.01.2020. Therefore, goods were detained and detention order came […]
National Internet Exchange of India Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) On perusal of the record, it emerges that Petitioner has filed TRAN-1 form within the time prescribed by the Respondents under the rules. Petitioner is holding documents evidencing payment of tax by it on such inputs / input services received under […]
