Respondent submitted that notice was given to driver of consignment and that is sufficient under GST Act. HC held that show cause notice issued to driver is not adequate
Calcutta High Court held that purchasing dealer is entitled for concessional rate of tax as they have fulfilled the conditions in Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Form “C” declarations having been verified and found to be in order by the concerned authority of the State of West Bengal. Thus, purchasing dealer are entitled to claim a refund of tax directly from the State of West Bengal and they are not required to make the claim through the selling dealer, IOCL.
Jharkhand High Court rejected the bail application as the person is likely to hamper the investigation as already there were attempts to submit the false certificate to obtain the benefit on medical grounds. Further, if the bail is granted, the petitioner is also likely to temper the evidences.
Orissa High Court held that concluded assessment could not be reopened by the Assessing Authority merely on the basis of audit objection.
Madras High Court held that that the scope of interference to a show-cause notice by a writ Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited, barring few exceptions, like lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process of law, etc. Here, writ petition entertained as show cause notice issued on lack of jurisdiction.
Where appellant-Revenue did not reveal that the statements recorded under Section 132(4) disclose some incriminating material on the basis of which orders under Section 153A had been passed then, no assessment under Section 153A should be made.
HC allowed Petitioner to submit a physical application for restoration of GST registration where application of cancellation was filed by petitioner
Madras High Court held that an order of settlement brings the entire dispute to an end and the same includes co-noticees as well. As Settlement Commissioner has granted immunity to the importer, no proceedings can be continued against CHA in same transaction.
Delhi High Court held that as the exercise of jurisdiction of Delhi High Court in case where the jurisdictional assessing officer is located outside NCT of Delhi in earlier judicial ruling is doubted. The matter is referred to larger bench of Delhi High Court.
Delhi High Court held that penalty order passed beyond the time period prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act i.e. after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated is liable to be set aside.
