Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs Reliance Industries Limited (Bombay High Court) The proper officer, to whom power is conferred by Section 28 of the said Act and other related provisions would necessarily mean the proper officer, who in the first instance, assessed and cleared the goods, i.e., Apprising Officer of Air Cargo Complex. Therefore, the […]
Aarcity Builders Private Limited Vs Union of India (Punjab & Haryana High Court) 1. By this batch of petitions, the petitioners have complained that their applications for revocation of cancellation of registration are not being considered/rejected on the ground that they have not been made within the time prescribed under Section 30 of the Central […]
Ram Prasad Ganga Prasad Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned order of adjudication dated 1st November, 2021 passed by the GST Authority concerned as appears at page 47 to the writ petition. Main ground of challenge of the impugned adjudication order by the petitioners is that […]
If the petitioner had played the role of a WhatsApp group administrator alone and nothing else, then while filing final report, the petitioner’s name shall be deleted. If some other material is also gathered by the first respondent so as to implicate the petitioner, then of course the petitioner will have to challenge the case only on merits.
Infosys Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of SGST (Telangana High Court) In a case where the proper officer is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable, he shall issue notice to the applicant requiring filing of […]
HC held that Cenvat Credit not eligible on facility of transportation provided by the appellant to its employees as same was merely in the nature of service for personal use or consumption of its employees.
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Bombay High Court) In our view, any decision on the issue whether the revenue could have invoked the extended period of limitation for recovery of the excise duty, or would not have any bearing or impact on the rate of duty of excise or […]
Reliance Industries Limited Vs CCIT (Bombay High Court) Respondent no.1, by letter dated 21st October 2020, replied to petitioner’s application dated 15th April 2020 that petitioner was eligible / entitled to avail the benefit of DTVSV (Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas) Act in accordance with law. Following the said communication, petitioner filed 27 applications for […]
Iit was stated that the respondent to that application i.e. the present petitioner was still engaging himself in issuance of fake paper invoices and thereby passing of fake / ineligible ITC running into crores of rupees
HC held that the IT Department is not entitled to issue notice against the Corporate Debtor for unpaid tax claims after the approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority.
