The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed GST assessment orders issued under Section 62 against Pushpa Decors after the required returns were subsequently filed. The court affirmed the assessment is deemed withdrawn under Section 62(2).
The Gujarat High Court held that importers under the EPCG Scheme are entitled to IGST refunds for imports made between July and October 2017, following the Prince Spintex ruling.
Division Bench held that notices must be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), following Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and declared notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court condoned delay in a GST appeal, citing the petitioner’s illness as sufficient cause, and directed the appellate authority to hear the case on merits.
Chhattisgarh High Court held that petition u/s. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Chaitanya Baghel seeking quashing of illegal arrest in the matter of money laundering linked to Liquor Scam is dismissed as grounds raised are procedural lapses not amounting to illegality.
The Madras High Court ruled that absence of pre-consultation does not invalidate a show cause notice, holding that departmental circulars are not legally binding.
Bombay High Court held that no hypothetical income of the assessee could have been brought to tax. Accordingly, income not accrued due to cancellation of sale agreement. Thus, order upheld and appeal of revenue dismissed.
Kerala High Court held that the statue permits taxpayer to correct bonafide errors by self-verification of assessment and payment of liability until the notice is issued under section 73 of the CGST. Accordingly, bonafide error in assessment and intimation in DRC-03 is directed to be allowed.
Bombay High Court held that order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission passed after imposition of moratorium u/s. 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code cannot have binding effect of the company. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Patna High Court held that since owner of the crane was not an accused in NDPS case, thus auction of his crane without any notice and without providing opportunity of being heard is unlawful. Accordingly, criminal writ petition is allowed.
