Gujarat High Court held that it is satisfied that provisional attachment is hindering the continuation of business of the petitioner, hence continuation of provisional attachment not necessary as the interest of revenue can be safeguarded by furnishing of a bank guarantee.
Gujarat High Court held that provisional attachment of property under section 83 of the CGST Act can be invoked only during pendency of certain proceedings. In absence of any initiation of proceedings, powers of provisional attachment cannot be exercised.
Gujarat High Court held that due to zero supply it was believed that GST return is not required to be filed. Further, the consultant also didn’t advise the petitioner correctly. Accordingly, order of cancellation of GST registration on account of non-filing of GST return was quashed
In present matter, the Honble Gujarat High Court held that prefacing the discussion on the aspects of law involved in the controversy and the application of provisions of the Act and the Rules, it has to be recollected that the provisions regarding countervailing duty, are based on the international treaty obligation.
Gujarat High Court in case of Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat held that mere expiry of e-way bill during transit of vehicle cannot be a valid ground for detention and seizure.
It was the specific case of Mr. Chandubhai Bhagwandas Patel wherein even though Form GSTR-1 for the month of August 2019 was correctly filed declaring all the relevant details qua outward supplies appropriately, refund of IGST paid upon export of goods was denied to the petitioner due to mistake being committed in Form GSTR-3B for the said month.
Firmenich Aromatics Production (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court issues notice to Central Government and State seeking to know steps to taken for constituting GST Tribunal. The Hon’ble Court issues notice to Central Government and State seeking to know steps taken for constituting GST Tribunal, even after the […]
PCIT Vs Shukla Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) We note that during the assessment proceedings, assesses had submitted before assessing officer (AO), the cash payment register and explained each of the item of proposed addition as per show cause notice of assessing officer. The cash payment register, which is placed at paper book page […]
It was C.O.C which has not taken efficient measures to complete the C.I.R.P of the Corporate Debtor Company. Even in the summary findings where the order of the adjudicating authority is quoted, it is made out that it was not the case that the C.O.C had raised any dissatisfaction with regard to the conduct of the petitioner or that there had been a lapse on his part.
The Honble Gujarat High Court held that the Notification could not be said to have been published without declaration form or digital signature certificate. Only after the declaration form and documents are signed digitally that they can be uploaded for e-publishing which has been done on 06.03.2018 at 19:15 hours in the present matter. Therefore, the effective date of Notification in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act is the date of its publication in Official Gazette in e-mode on 06.03.2018.
