M/s Bridge Hygiene Services Private Limited Vs The State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) The statutory prescription of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order passed under sub section (1) of Section 62 has to be strictly construed against an assessee and in favour of the revenue, since this is a […]
Statutory prescription of 30 days from the date of receipt of the assessment order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 62 has to be strictly construed against an assessee and in favour of the revenue, since this is a provision in a taxing statute that enables an assessee to get an order passed against him on best judgment basis set aside. The provision must be interpreted in the same manner as an exemption provision in a taxing statute.
(i) Section 110(1)(b)(iii) of the CGST Act which states that a Member of the Indian Legal Services, who has held a post not less than Additional Secretary for three years, can be appointed as a Judicial Member in GSTAT, is struck down. (ii) Section 109(3) and 109(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes that the tribunal shall consists of one Judicial Member, one Technical Member (Centre) and one Technical Member (State), is struck down.
Madras High Court passes an interim order against AAAR on plea of RWAs to charge GST only on the amount in excess of Rs.7500/- but not on the entire amount.
Mohd. Sahil Jakir Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Referring to provisions of section 129 of the CGST Act, it was submitted that the same do not contemplate detention of goods on any ground other than the grounds stated therein and that, undervaluation of an invoice cannot be a ground for detention of goods […]
In the given case the issue under consideration is that the amount claimed as capital receipts, by the assessee are taxable and have to be treated as income or not?
Ramji Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1967 S.C. 1910 held that it is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by administrative instruction, but if the rules are silent on any […]
The Court is satisfied in the present case that the Petitioner was unable to fill the TRAN-1 Form on account of bonafide difficulties and that, therefore, the Petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity to do so.
M/s. Baril Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors. (Gauhati High Court) This Court is of the view that if there is a provision made for filing returns electronically and if because of certain technical glitches uploading could not be done in time, on that ground the concerned individual or firm ought […]
Petitioner-Assessee has to file his annual return for the Assessment Year 2017-18 by 31.8.2019 under the CGST and HGST. However, it is handicapped on account of inadvertent mistakes/errors having occurred while filing statutory fowls GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, which can be corrected in view of legal provisions, however, same are not being accepted by official portal of the department.
