HC held that the show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) cannot be issued on a mere suspicion. There has to be some prima facie material on the basis of which the authority may arrive at the satisfaction that the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
SB Traders Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) It was pointed out that three months back, an application was fled under Section 67(6) of the Act for provisional release of the goods and the conveyance. However, according to the learned counsel, no orders have been passed on such application. We dispose of this writ […]
Explore the Gujarat High Court’s decision on Anant Jignesh Shah vs Union of India, highlighting the invalidity of a GST detention notice based on mere suspicion. Learn how the court quashed the notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
Selvel Media Services Private Ltd. Vs Municipal of the City of Ahmadabad (Gujarat High Court) Issues- By this petition under the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Resolution no.928 dated 28th November 2018 and the Resolution dated 24th December 2018 passed by the Standing Committee of the […]
The Hon’ble HC, Gujarat in Cosmo Films India v. Union of India & Ors. [R/SLP No. 15833/2018 dated October 20, 2020] upheld the validity of rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“CGST Rules”) and rules that notification is required to be made applicable prospectively only w.e.f. October 23, 2017 and […]
Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) (1) Q. whether the power to arrest as provided under section 69 read with section 132 of the CGST Act can be invoked by the Commissioner only upon completion of the adjudication process of finalising the assessment and determination of the liability as per the […]
The High Court in this regard stayed CAG audit of a private limited company providing warehouse and logistical support services in SEZ. CAG was directed not to carry out any further Service Tax audit of petitioner.
Petitioner filed this petition to seek anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered for the offense punishable under Sections 12, 7(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
HC are of the view that none of the above referred conditions are fulfilled in the present case. In the result, this writ application stands allowed. The order of provisional attachment of the five bank accounts of the writ applicant under Section 83 of the Act is quashed and set aside.
Rajesh Kiran D Vs. Joint Commissioner Of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) The matter, as on date, is at the stage of Form GST MOV-10. Thus, the writ applicant has been called upon to show-cause as to why the goods and the vehicle should not be confiscated under Section 130 of the Act. The writ […]
