Gauhati High Court directs immediate restoration of a resort’s GST registration, cancelled due to non-filing, contingent on filing pending returns and paying all statutory dues.
Madras High Court held that imposition of penalty u/s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on case of the person from whom gold was seized without independently considering the case of the petitioner is not justifiable. Accordingly, court directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted bail to the petitioner caught in alleged illicit drug on the ground of medical condition of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ allowed and bail granted.
The balance tax demand was also paid. Later, the Revisional Authority issued a notice under Section 64, claiming the appellate order was prejudicial to revenue. Assessee objected, stating that once benefits under the Scheme were granted, revision was not permissible.
Orissa High Court held that writ against blocking of Input Tax Credit [ITC] under rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules [CGST Rules] not entertained as reply of the petitioner is pending adjudication. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Delhi High Court held that fine imposed for non-furnishing of financial documents on directors of the company is justifiable, however, compounding fine amount reduced from Rs. 1.50 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakhs due to severe financial difficulty faced by the directors.
Depreciation claim under Section 32 was allowable on actual cost of assets which the assessee paid to the erstwhile partners for taking over from a dissolved firm. It did not matter if the partners were from the same family, as the Act did not make any such distinction.
Madras High Court directed petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed tax amount and granted time to furnish reply to the GST show cause notice. Accordingly, writ petition disposed of.
Delhi High Court held that in absence of transfer of title or sale of property, no incidence of tax can be invoked. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 on account of sale not justifiable in absence of any transfer. Hence, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Madras High Court held that Input Tax Credit which is barred by limitation in terms of section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is available in case the same is within period prescribed in terms of section 16(5) of the Act.
