Madras High Court sets aside GST order, directs tax department to issue circular advising assessees to engage qualified consultants; bank account de-frozen.
Chhattisgarh High Court rules cash-in-hand from a preceding year’s balance sheet cannot be taxed as unexplained money under Section 69A in a subsequent year.
Sikkim High Court held that order of Assistant Commissioner (GST) denying budgetary support claim is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.
Madras High Court didn’t entertain the writ as refund application filed without debiting extent of refund claim amount from Electronic Credit Ledger. Accordingly, writ dismissed as mandatory requirement of filing refund application not complied.
Where there exist conflicting test reports regarding conformity of imported goods to standards, the proper course was to allow the importer to respond to the show cause notice with all supporting documents, and for the authority to decide after affording a hearing whether provisional release under Section 110A could be granted.
Assessee could not file GST returns under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 for about six months due to reasons beyond control, but was willing to comply with all pending formalities under Rule 22(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Conversion of MEIS shipping bills to the DEPB scheme was permissible where bills not ‘free shipping bills as the scale of examination under both schemes was similar and the non-examination of goods could not be attributed to the assessee.
In RCM there was no output tax liability because it was treated as exempt and, therefore, in tune with the objective of GST, credit of ITC could not be claimed in the absence of liability but same could be claimed by the recipient of service.
Tribunal upheld revision. It was held that once there was an inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 263 merely because he had a different opinion in the matter.
Although in the tax statute the limitation was interpreted in strict manner but when the legislature itself had prescribed extended period of time after period of limitation then the Authority ought to have considered such aspect and examined the cause shown by the appellant.
