Delhi High Court held that procedure prescribed under rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 is to be followed for any party (including the person who participated in the anti-dumping investigation) requires any information. Rule 7 procedure cannot be bypassed by resorting to RTI.
By an order dated 08.04.2022 passed in RPG Polymers v. Commissioner of DGST Delhi and Anr. W.P.(C) 5849/2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had clarified that such errors, which are apparent on the face of the record, are required to be rectified under Section 161 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Shreedhra Agro LLP Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (hereafter ‘CAAR’) whereby the products proposed to be imported by the appellant being ‘Scented & Flavoured and Sweetened Supari’ are classified under […]
G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And CGST (Delhi High court) The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of 7.5% of duty for maintaining an appeal against the order-in-original dated 26.11.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Adjudication, Central Tax, GST, Delhi East. Court is unable to accept that […]
Notice under Section 148A(b) & order U/s. 148A(d) of Income Tax Act against an entity (LLP), which was no longer in existence is invalid.
Sh. Ishwar Chand Proprietor of M/S Bhagwati Trading Co. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) The controversy in the present petition relates to levy of penalty for late filing of the GST returns, for the period the petitioner was disabled from doing so, on account of cancellation of its GSTIN registration. It is the […]
Rohit Kapur Vs PCIT (Delhi High Court) The proviso to Sub-section(4) of Section 270AA of the Act makes it amply clear that before an application is rejected, the applicant must be given an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was not afforded the said opportunity. In […]
Section 73 and 74 of CGST Act also provide for recovery of refund where the same has been erroneously granted.
Delhi High Court held that filing of multiple patent claims in respect of the same invention amounts to evergreening or layering of patent protection, which is impermissible under the Indian Patent Law.
Delhi High Court held that as per explanation inserted to Condition No. 104, exemption condition would be satisfied if the aircraft imported is used for non-scheduled (passenger) services or non-scheduled (charter) services. Accordingly, use of imported aircraft by non-scheduled (passenger) services, shall not be construed to be a violation of conditions of imports at concessional rate of duty.
