Manpowergroup Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court) THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT IGNORE THE MANDATE OF RULE 28AA AND PROCEED ON ANY OTHER BASIS AS THE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND STANDARDS THEY THEMSELVES HAD SET ON PAIN OF THEIR ACTION BEING INVALIDATED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS QUASHED ON […]
Sh Raghav Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax And GST Delhi North (Delhi High Court) 2. The applicant was arrested by an Arrest Memo dated 18.11.2020, issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), Commissioner Central Tax, GST Delhi 3. Mr Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has referred to the Arrest Memo, which indicates that […]
M.S. Meghdoot Logistics Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court) Proper Officer was empowered to possess Confiscated Goods if option to pay Fine in addition to the tax payable, penalty and other charges was not exercised Conclusion: Where proper officer, who had detained the conveyance and seized the goods was able to form opinion that […]
Metrolite Roofing Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise (Kerala High Court) High Court of Kerala Quashes Appeal Commissioner’s Order for Not Issuing Record of Personal Hearing as Per CBIC Instruction. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT In all these Writ Petitions, the issue that is raised while […]
Bharat Forge Limited Vs Principal Chief Materials Manager Diesel Locomotive Works (Allahabad High Court) The HSN code (Harmonized System of Nomenclature) is provided for each product/service by GST Council to specify the rate at which GST would be applicable. The suppliers have to quote HSN Code of the product to be supplied by them in […]
Surat Mercantile Association Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Rule 36(4) of the Central GST Rules and Gujarat and GST Rules, 2017 restricts Input tax credit to be availed by the buyer of goods or services in respect of invoices or debit notes, the details of which have not been uploaded by the suppliers […]
It appears that while generating the e-way bill, the option of bill to ship to was selected which is even reflected in the e-way bill. It has been specifically mentioned in the e-way bill that the goods have been dispatched from Jalna, State of Maharashtra.
Service of the show cause notice at a wrong E-mail address is neither contemplated under the Act nor can it be deemed to be a proper service under the Act. As no show cause notice has ever been served, the petitioner never had any occasion to file its reply and thereafter not serving a copy of the reasoned order quantifying the demand is clearly erroneous.
State Bank of India Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) In our considered view the facts in the case at hand being similar to the facts in the case of ASREC (India) Limited (Supra) that decision would squarely be applicable to the facts of this case that if any Central statute creates priority of […]
Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Before issuance of certificates under section 197 of the Act, the same must be preceded by an order. That order must disclose reasons and is an order passed in exercise of quasi-judicial powers. Such an order can be assailed in revision under section 264 of the […]
