Bombay High Court held that show cause notice should be adjudicated within a reasonable time and there should not be an egregious, unjustified and unexplained inordinate delay.
Kerala High Court held that clarification order accepts classification of Clohex and Clohex Plus as medicament, based on the fact that they were manufactured under a drug licence. However, there is no reason discernible from clarification order as to why Senquel-AD Mouthwash which is presented in a similar form cannot also be classified as a medicament.
Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and directed department not to act in furtherance of order passed by appellate authority till the time appellate tribunal in term of Section 109 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is constituted.
Patna High Court held that as Petitioner failed to furnish satisfactory explanation regarding huge fixed assets and cash available with him, bail application of the Petitioner is rejected.
ITAT rules that an assessee isn’t responsible for a non-responsive supplier when purchases were made in earlier years. Lack of supplier’s response to a section 133(6) notice doesn’t invalidate the transaction.
Delhi High Court held that since no income chargeable to tax arose in the hands of the non-resident, as per the provisions of the Act, there was no obligation to deduct tax at source under Section 195 of the Act. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) unjustified.
Madras High Court held that Credit note u/s 34 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 not required when goods were being returned without even being received by the recipient. Accordingly, detention of goods for non-issuance of Credit note unwarranted.
A detailed analysis of the Bombay High Court’s verdict in Mathuradas Narandas & Sons Forwarders Ltd. vs. CBDT, highlighting the significance of timely ITR filing.
Delhi High Court held that as per Rule 34 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, a claim for refund of tax is liable to be made in Form DVAT-21 only if such a refund is not claimed in the return itself.
Tripura High Court’s decision on whether the Limitation Act 1963 applies to GST appeals. Analysis of Sanjib Kumar Pal Vs Union of India.
