Held that circular no. 125/44/2019-GST dated 18th November 2019 shall be applicable only to applications filed electronically on the common portal but would have no applicability to an application for refund which is filed manually.
Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohit Raghuram Hegde Proprietor Creative Infotech (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that mere valid arbitration clause exist in “terms and conditions” as mentioned in the website and mere allegation of fraud would not vitiate the constitution of arbitral […]
Held that duty demand unsustainable in absence of any evidence that job work charges paid by the company to the job workers flowed back to them and in absence of any evidence that that the Company is involved in clandestine removal of goods
Held that goods can be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Act, only in favour of an owner. Provisional release of goods is not possible if the ownership of the goods in question is not proved.
Bombay HC set aside the assessment orders under the Maharashtra VAT Act whereby a Developer was assessed as un-registered dealer for the periods from 2011-12 onwards
CGST authorities and SGST authorities would consider Petitioner’s case sympathetically when it comes to interest and penalty. Unless they have some other reason, Petitioner should not be saddled with interest and penalty.
SAT Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Suspension of GST registration without opportunity of being heard- HC issues notice to Centre/State Govts Petitioner submitted that the original Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 provided that a party shall be given a reasonable opportunity of […]
Petitioner never claimed higher draw back. Mistakenly suffix ‘A’ was included instead of ‘B’ but draw back claimed was same as custom component
Bombay High Court held that rights created by SARFAESI Act would have the overriding effect over any State Acts and accordingly Secured Creditor would have first right over the State Tax Departments.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that in no manner under Commercial Courts Act, the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 has been either disturbed or divested in matters of appointment of an arbitral tribunal as provided for under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
