Orissa High Court held that challenge against reversal of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under GST not entertained due to availability of alternative remedy to appeal before appellate authority under section 107 of GST Act. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a tax order against a deceased person is legally void. Revenue can initiate new proceedings against the legal heirs under Section 93 of the CGST Act.
Madras High Court held that petitioners are not entitled for payment of fine in lieu of confiscation since gold imported beyond the permissible limit of 1 Kg is to be treated as prohibited items as per the provisions of section 2(33) of the Customs Act.
Gauhati High Court held that Summary of SCN issued in Form GST DRC-01 doesn’t substitute proper SCN. Thus, mere issuance of summary of SCN is not valid SCN. Therefore, initiating proceedings solely based on such a statement is not in conformity with law.
The Gujarat High Court has granted bail to Sunil Hiralal Mandowara in a GST fraud case. The court cited the completion of the investigation and the accused’s 8-month incarceration.
Calcutta High Court dismisses a writ petition from Tara Lohia Private Limited, challenging a GST order. The court ruled that the petitioner failed to provide supporting documents for input tax credit claims, upholding the tax authority’s decision.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST-registered firm cannot claim ignorance of GST rules or the validity of notices served via the GST portal. A petitioner’s adverse order was conditionally quashed, requiring a 25% deposit of the disputed tax amount.
Uttarakhand High Court allows Ashu Enterprises to seek GST registration revocation after cancellation for non-filing, setting conditions for pending returns and payments
The Gauhati High Court has ruled that a summary of a show cause notice is not a valid substitute for a formal notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. The court quashed an order against Air Transport Corporation Assam, reinforcing a prior ruling.
The Madras High Court directed Sri Mahalakshmi Construction to deposit 5% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register to secure a final hearing, as the petitioner had failed to attend previous hearings.
