The Court held that common trade parlance and industry understanding treated the goods as plastic sacks rather than textile products. This finding supported classification under HSN 3923.
The Court directed the appellate authority to accept manual filing of Form GST APL-01 after the taxpayer could not upload the appeal electronically due to a technical glitch. Delay in filing was also condoned under the CGST Act.
The Court ruled that liability to pay additional tax arises only after the reciprocating State grants countersignature to the permit. Tax demands raised before countersignature were held to be without jurisdiction.
The Calcutta High Court upheld rejection of exemption under Section 12AB after finding that proposed microfinance activities involved commercial features such as charging interest. The Court held that such activities may not qualify as charitable purposes.
The Calcutta High Court set aside cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns, observing that preventing business operations would adversely affect tax recovery. Restoration was made subject to filing pending returns and payment of dues.
The Calcutta High Court held that municipal tax receipts, khajna receipts, and records of rights were sufficient to establish better title in an eviction suit against licensees. The appeal was dismissed as the defendants failed to prove ownership or tenancy rights.
Court held that amended gratuity rules effective from July 2013 governed all employees uniformly and prevailed over inconsistent provisions in the HR manual. The appeal seeking enhanced gratuity was dismissed.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
The Calcutta High Court held that a dispute arising from a conveyance relating to office premises satisfied the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Calcutta High Court permitted withdrawal of appeals after noting that the constitutional validity issue had already been settled. The Court allowed the appellant to pursue fresh appeals on merits before the appellate authority.
