In present facts of the case, the Honble Madras High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner have alternative remedy to file appeal and have also directed to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- for saving the premises from getting sealed by authorities.
HC held that the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9) and 76(3) of CGST Act and reply so filed through post shall also be treated as valid.
Trans India Carco Carriers Vs The Assistant Commissioner (Circle) (Madras High Court) I have had an occasion to consider the identical issue that arises in these writ petitions, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.10663 of 2022 etc. batch and I have passed the following order on 17.08.2022:- ‘All writ petitioners have challenged orders […]
Madras High Court held that addition of gifts as undisclosed income sustainable as there was no acceptable explanation as to the nature of relationship the gift receiver had with the donor in the course of business transaction.
Madras High Court held that interference with Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of inequitable nature or unfair advantage not justified
HC held that the assessee should be permitted to file GST returns for the period before the cancellation of GST Registration and make payment of tax dues along with interest.
Where the parties have agreed to give only supervisory powers to a third party with respect to the disputes arising between them, and a clause which does not disclose the intention of the parties to give any adjudicatory powers to the third party, does not qualify as an ‘arbitration agreement’, as defined under Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Renatus Procon Private Ltd. Vs Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling (Madras High Court) HC held that with the enacting of the TNGST Act, 2018, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling does not exist in the form in which it did under the TNVAT Act and hence, the application filed by the petitioner does […]
Since in matters of interception, seizure and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of ‘working day’ and ‘holiday’, therefore, the order of detention was necessarily to be issued prior to the 7th day from date of detention/seizure of the conveyance/consignment in question, to validate both the interception and the SCN.
Held that while the owner or any person transporting the goods has been granted the right to seek release, the transporter has right to seek the release of conveyance alone.
