Bombay High Court held that there is no power available with the custom authorities to seal premises of any person, which are nothing but a form of immovable property.
Bombay High Court held that extended period of limitation not invocable as there was no suppression, misrepresentation or fraud committed by the assessee.
Soumyendra Nath Banerjee Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court didn’t entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under section 25 of PMLA Act, 2002 available. Facts- The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of provisional attachment […]
Allahabad High Court held that provisions of section 15 of the GST Act doesnt prescribe valuation of goods on the basis of eye estimation. Accordingly, impugned order based on such valuation is not sustainable.
Bombay High court held that rejection of SVLDRS-1 application alleging wrong Commissionerate is unjustified as at the time of filing application, petitioner didn’t had option to file or change the Commissionerate.
Mount Everest Breweries Ltd. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed a petition bearing W.P. No. 8560/2016 seeking quashment of the assessment order issued by the respondents for the assessment year 2012-13 for arbitrarily levy of tax on beer under residual entry […]
Gujarat HC quashes CGST appeal on refund denial. Orders fresh consideration by Appellate Authority. Apex Formulations Pvt Ltd. vs Union of India.
Tejus Vertrage Infra LLP Vs Union of India & Ors (Bombay High Court) Period of limitation which was extended under the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 also apply to the claim for refund. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the decision […]
After lapse of 10 years second impugned notice dated 30th October, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner asking him to appear for hearing. The Petitioner filed an application dated 9th November, 2017 before the authority expressing its inability to collect documents after such a long lapse of time.
The respondent has since revoked the suspension of the petitioner’s registration and the same is active. It is also stated that the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 15.02.2023 under Section 73(5) raising a demand of ₹6,37,916.00/-. The said demand notice also states that in the event the demand is not paid, a Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) would be issued.
