WS Retail Services Private Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) It is the case of the petitioner, undisputed by the respondent that petitioner is not a registered dealer under JVAT Act, 2005 nor has been assessed to tax under the Act. No demand notices were raised against the petitioner as such to the […]
Petitioner could not furnish his reply as no date or time was indicated therein. As such, the cancellation of registration resulting from such an incomplete/deficient show-cause notice (SCN) also cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice.
BGR Mining & Infra Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties in respect of the issue of levy of interest under Section 50 of the Act on the gross tax liability as upheld in appeal by the Respondent Joint Commissioner of State Sales […]
Atibir Industries Co. Ltd. Vs The Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) Conclusion: On discovering of technical glitches faced by assessee-company, GST Authority was directed either to open GSTN portal enabling assessee to file its application for refund in GST RFD-01 or to manually accept the application for refund pertaining to the period 2017-18 and […]
Electrosteel Steels Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Facts The assessee company had challenged the garnishee order issued u/s 46 of the JVAT Act, asking the respondent Bank to pay into the Government Treasury, the sum of Rs. 37,41,41,602, on account of tax / penalty due under the JVAT Act, from the assessee […]
Mahadeo Construction Co. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) High Court held that interest liability under section 50 is although automatic, but it’s computation and demand can be raised only after initiation of Adjudication proceedings under Section 73 or 74 in case the assesse disputes the demand of interest. Whether garnishee proceedings under Section […]
Liability to pay any VAT on the trade discounts / incentives pursuant to bringing in Section 9(5) in JVAT Act was beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature, and the same was ultra vires Article 246(1) of the Constitution of India, and could not be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, it had to be treated as if never existing in the Statute Book.
In a case where the assessee had wrongly deposited IGST as CGST, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the letter saddling petitioner company with liability to pay short paid IGST along with interest. The High Court however directed the petitioner to deposit IGST and to claim refund of CGST or adjust the amount wrongly deposited under CGST for future liability of CGST.
Tarapore & Company Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) We find that the petitioner firm had acted absolutely in a bona fide manner, as is also apparent from the impugned order dated 20.11 .2017, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, and had discharged its tax liability by paying the VAT amount to […]
Godavari Commodities Ltd. Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court) In the present case, though it is submitted by learned counsel for CGST that since the tax was paid, Section 73 (1) of the Act shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner, but the fact remains that the tax was not paid […]
