Bodal Chemicals Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) HC held that GST department cannot raise their hands in despair saying that it is not possible to correct or take care of the technical glitches. The writ applicant herein has been running from pillar to post requesting the respondents to provide a solution and […]
Harsh Dipak Shah Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Facts- The writ applicant prayed for waiver of 20% of the pre-deposit essentially on four grounds (i) high pitched assessment (ii) only source of income through Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (iii) stereo type order passed by the Principal Commissioner and (iv) adverse effect on the […]
Saint-Gobain India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant is seeking direction to the respondents to forthwith grant the refund of the amount of Rs.2,30,11,188/- collected from the writ applicant by the seller of natural gas and deposited with the respondent authorities […]
Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Facts- The writ applicant is a sole proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of dyeing and printing fabrics. The writ applicant was a registered dealer holding GSTIN with effect from 04.08.2017. The copy of such registration certificate in the […]
New Nalbandh Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Rule 86A has two pre-requisites to be fulfilled before the power of disallowing of debit of suitable amount to the Electronic Credit Ledger or blocking of ECL to the extent of the amount fraudulently or wrongly availed of is exercised. The first pre-requisite is of […]
Nehal Ashwinkumar Shah Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court held that unlike Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there is no provision in the Sales Tax Act fastening the liability of the company to pay its sales tax dues on its Director. It further held that The attachment on […]
Writ applicant could be said to be entitled to claim the refund of the IGST lying in the Electronic Credit Ledger as there is no specific supplier who can claim the refund under the provisions of the CGST Act and the CGST Rules as Input Tax Credit is distributed by the input service distributor.
In the instant case, admittedly there has been no provisional release of the seized goods. Further extension of six months with the reasoned order by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs also is completely missing. The period of six months from the date of signature expired on 03.10.2019.
Messers Filatex India Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The short point for our consideration as on date is whether the assertion on the part of the writ applicant that it is entitled to claim the refund in accordance with the formula as provided under Sub Rule (4) of Rule 89 of the […]
Hazel Mercantile Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner Of Customs (Gujarat High Court) At this stage, Mr. Nankani made two fold fervent appeals. He made a request that the earlier bond, which was furnished by his client to the respondent No.1 should be returned as the writ applicant has now been asked to furnish a fresh bond. […]
