If authority intend to add interest and penalty on amount fixed in SCN, separate notices ought to have been issued to for the said demand
Petitioner explained that they have not conducted any events in respect of documents available on Facebook and that documents were uploaded only for advertisement
Held that keeping in view the gravity of the crime, it being socio-economic offence, petitioner is not entitled for pre-arrest bail.
Held that Manual issued by the Government suggesting settlement of dispute by arbitration would not amount to execution of arbitration agreement between the parties. Application u/s 11(4) & 11(6) dismissed as no arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Held that information available on the social media platform of petitioner shows that the event were conducted. Petition dismissed giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.
Venkateswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) HC Directs Revenue Department to grant refund of the excess payment along with the interest due to delay The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Venkateswara Electricals v State of Andhra Pradesh [Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2022 dated March 9, 2022] directed […]
Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Penalty was not to be imposed on assessee as demand did not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020 and opportunity of hearing was not provided to assessee.
S.P.Y. Agro Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh HC) Penalties have been imposed creating additional liability on the petitioner, which was not reflected in the earlier notice dated 13.08.2020. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while imposing the said penalty. As stated earlier Section 62 of the Act does not […]
Customs authorities (DRI officials) have no power or jurisdiction to inspect or seize goods in respect of units situated in the SEZ area. The Court held that only the Officers empowered under Section 22 of the SEZ Act have the power to investigate any offence committed in the SEZ unit.
