Allahabad High Court ruled that appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot be dismissed as not maintainable if the High Court itself has directed the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy under this provision.
Gauhati HC quashes GST Notification No. 56/2023, clarifying that ratification cannot substitute prior recommendation as mandated under Section 168A of the CGST Act.
It was argued on behalf of the revenue that tribunal was not justified in passing the order as it is an admitted fact that huge cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee, which was totally contrary to the agreement hence provisions 69A were attracted.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the minutes of meeting held on 08.11.2024, though which TRQ (Tariff Rate Quota) allotted to petitioners by the respondent for import of bullion. Petitioners are dealing in business of import of gold.
Madras High Court held that Local Committee on High Pitched Scrutiny Assessment are not required to grant an opportunity of being heard as there is no provisions laid down in the SOP. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the demand raised under a new PAN number distinct and different from the PAN number under which the petitioner has been filing return, which was validly issued to her by the department.
Madras HC held that amount paid by petitioner on reverse charge basis during transition to GST regime is allowed as recredit as Input Tax Credit in Electronic Credit Ledger. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Delhi High Court held that no provision under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 [DTVSV Act] empowers Designated Authority to reopen concluded assessment after issuance of final certificate u/s. 5(1) of the DTVSV Act.
Delhi High Court held that review of order passed by the appellate authority, by the Commissioner, by exercising powers vested by section 107(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is unsustainable n law. Accordingly, writ petition allowed.
In the opinion of this Court, there existed no reason for the non-adjudication of the show-cause notice and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the facts do not reveal any glaring impossibility for the Customs Department to deal with the show-cause notice.
