HC held that the show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) cannot be issued on a mere suspicion. There has to be some prima facie material on the basis of which the authority may arrive at the satisfaction that the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
The issue under consideration is whether ‘Noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more can be said to be a contravention of the CGST Act?
Gokul P.G. Vs State of Kerala (High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam) Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions, and that, while a detention of goods and vehicle under Section 129 could entail proceedings under Section 130, in situations where the detained goods/vehicle are not cleared by the owners thereof within a period of 14 […]
Principal Director, Income Tax Vs Rajiv Yaduvanshi (Delhi High Court) Moreover, in cases pertaining to Tax evasion petitions like the present case, this Court also exercises its powers sparingly and it is a well-settled principle that only the broad outcome of the Tax evasion petition may be communicated to the complainant, that too upon culmination […]
SB Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It was pointed out that three months back, an application was fled under Section 67(6) of the Act for provisional release of the goods and the conveyance. However, according to the learned counsel, no orders have been passed on such application. We dispose of this writ […]
Explore the Gujarat High Court’s decision on Anant Jignesh Shah vs Union of India, highlighting the invalidity of a GST detention notice based on mere suspicion. Learn how the court quashed the notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
Heritage Lifestyles and Developers And Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) This is a case, where admittedly Petitioner could not file GST TRAN-1 on or before 27.12.2017 but had manually applied for GST TRAN-1 on 7.5.2018 as per Circular dated 03.04.2018 within the timeline as per the date extended by this Court. […]
Mumbai Fabrics P. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court) Question for consideration is whether the seized goods imported by the petitioner are old and used rubber tyres reusable as tyres or are old and used rubber tyres scrap being in pressed baled form? Evidently there is a dispute between the petitioner […]
Prathamesh Dream Properties P. Ltd Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & others (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is whether petitioner should have the benefit of relief as a declarant under the ‘pending litigation category’ and thus entitled to refund of the amount paid? High Court states that a careful and conjoint […]
The issue under consideration is whether in SVLDR scheme we need to show the amount mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice or the amount determined by the adjudicating authority in the original order?
