It was the specific case of Mr. Chandubhai Bhagwandas Patel wherein even though Form GSTR-1 for the month of August 2019 was correctly filed declaring all the relevant details qua outward supplies appropriately, refund of IGST paid upon export of goods was denied to the petitioner due to mistake being committed in Form GSTR-3B for the said month.
Sai Kripa Confectioneries Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Provisional attachment of bank account along with credit ledger account was unblocked on the admission of the Commissioner that there was an error in judgement. Alert made as risky exporter was also removed. The Petitioner challenged the attachment of bank accounts, blocking of credit ledger […]
Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court issues notice to Central Government and State seeking to know steps to taken for constituting GST Tribunal. The Hon’ble Court issues notice to Central Government and State seeking to know steps taken for constituting GST Tribunal, even after the […]
Delhi High Court sets aside ex-parte assessment order and directed petitioners to place on record available documents to stake claim that Inter-state sales/ branch transfers have taken place.
Rosy Blue India Private Limited vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner challenged non-sanction of refund of service tax paid on export of services. The Show Cause Notice proposing denial of refund was challenged. However, during the pendency, refund of principal was granted. The interest on delayed refund from 2010-2011 till 2022 was […]
Madras High Court in the case of dismissal of Commercial Tax Officer from the service due to collection of bribe as Diwali Mamool from the traders held that punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the nature of charge.
Delhi High Court held that as appellant have exhausted their appellate remedy and there is no alternate efficacious remedy available to the appellant, the court finds the case fit for exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226.
Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner which needs to be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per the provisions of Section 246 of the Income Tax Act.
Orissa High Court held that in absence of any power of review, the Tribunal could not have subsequently reconsidered its previous decision and the subsequent order reopening the matter is held to be the illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction.
Mudit Saxena Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court) Banks Can Not Initiate Recovery of Loan From Homebuyers For Non-Payment of EMI Due to Default on the part of the Builder/Developer (Karnataka High Court): RERA In a significant order, Karnataka High Court prohibits Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (PNBHFL) from using coercive means to […]
