The provisions of Section 107 of the Act deal with ‘Appeal’ and provide that an appeal be filed as against any order of the State Goods and Services Tax Act within a period of 90 days. There is a condonable period of one month after the aforesaid period of 90 days, for which the authority may grant condonation, if convinced by the explanation set out by the petitioner. The appeal of petitioner has been filed after a period of 2 months and 17 days, over and above the statutory limitation of 90 + 30 days.
Tzudi Forest Products Vs State of Assam (Guwahati High Court) The grievance of the petitioner is against the action of the respondents in seeking road permit for transporting goods/forest products after obtaining e-way bills. It is the case of the petitioner that previously, there were check gates but, however after coming into effect the Goods […]
Sugan Clothing Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & CE (Madras High Court) The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘Act’) and challenges an order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 05.03.2020 rejecting the request for amendment of TRAN-1. 2. I am of the considered […]
Bansal Steels Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (Delhi High Court) The petitioner had applied for cancellation of its GST registration for the first time on 04.12.2018 with effect from that date, stating that the reason for seeking such cancellation was that it had discontinued/closed its business. The said application was rejected by an […]
Kerala High Court recalls interim order in Sandeep’s review petition against State Tax Officer. Clarifies the correct interpretation of Section 112(8)(b).
Udayanapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO (Kerala High Court) The challenge in this writ petition is against the assessment order produced as Ext.P1 and the demand notice issued pursuant to the assessment. The assessment relates to the assessment year 202021. The only question that is involved is whether the petitioner’s Society is entitled to […]
This Petition is pending for more than a year on a simple issue as to who is the Proper Authority to decide the Petitioner’s case / claim. According to the reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs – Respondent no.5, it is the Respondent no.4 who is the authority.
No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU
Galaxy Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Odisha and others (Orissa High Court) Aggrieved by the non-grant of a licence for an IMFL Restaurant ON Shop under the name and style as ‘Galaxy Bar and Restaurant at Nayagarh’, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to process […]
Madras High Court set aside the impugned order as it was based on one basis that writ petitioner’s case is not covered under instruction no. 1914 dated 02.12.1993.
