By way of interim relief, it is directed that the respondents shall release the goods and conveyance of the petitioner, confiscated and detained pursuant to the aforementioned order No. 8 dated 21.04.2022 passed in FORM GST MOV-11
It was further pointed out by the petitioner that the respondent – workman cannot be termed as workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Bijal Dhimankumar Vyas Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The Designated committee (DC) did not consider the amount of pre-deposit made during investigation. The High Court held that the CESTAT had granted stay to the Petitioner on the basis of payment of pre-deposit. Thus, this deposit is not in dispute. The rejection was set […]
Gujarat High Court held that refund is available under Section 54(6) of the CGST read with Section 91(2) of the CGST Rules however due to limitation of GSTN software the same is not granted. Refund allowed along with interest @6%.
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.
