Mohankar Timber Company Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) In this case Instead of filing Application for Revocation of GST Registration Certificate, petitioner filed Appeal against the cancellation order which Appellate Authority dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioner challenged order of Appellate Authority by filing Writ Petition before Bombay High Court.HC allowed writ Petition and […]
Bombay High Court held that as per Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST dated 18 March 2020 dealing with non-constitution of Appellate Tribunal. It is clarified that the appeal to tribunal can be made within three months (six months in case of appeals by the Government) from the date of communication of order or date on which the President or the State President, as the case may be, of the Appellate Tribunal enters office, whichever is later.
Gujarat High Court held that in case there is any doubt with regard to export of goods, then, Customs Authority needs to take up the issue and not GST Authority.
Karnataka High Court held that amendment to Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) can be done only by the Central Government and not by DGFT. Whereas, amendment to the procedure can be done by DGFT.
Bombay HC Revenue Department to incorporate measures to reduce inflow of litigations in Court, which has arisen due to non-constitution of GST Tribunal
Bombay High Court held that in the present case there is full and true disclosure on the part of the petitioner. Reopening of assessment, on the ground that another director of the same company has disclosed the income differently is evidently a change of opinion and unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court held that as writ is filed, in the matter of differential duty in respect of portable emergency lamp, after a lapse of almost sixteen years, the same needs reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Guwahati High Court held that any member of a Scheduled Tribe as defined in Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, residing in any of the areas prescribed u/s. 10(26), is exempted from payment of income tax. However, residing in any area specified cannot be given a narrow and restricted meaning.
Gujarat High Court held that impugned order cancelling the registration traveling beyond the scope of show cause notice is untenable in law.
Bombay High Court held that as between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened i.e. there is no change in law, no new material came on record and no new information has been received. Hence reopening proceedings was just change of opinion accordingly the same is unsustainable in law.
