An order has passed holding the issue adverse to interests of petitioner. So, prayer of petitioner for a mandamus forbearing respondents from levying, collecting or recovering GST does not arise.
Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Ganges International Private Limited (Madras High Court) High Court held that carry forward of service tax eligible for CENVAT in erstwhile regime cannot be denied for late payment can be denied under GST due to Transitional Period and inability of the petitioner to claim through filing FORM GST […]
HC ruled that in a case where tax has not been remitted, interest U/s. 50 of the GST Acts is leviable even if the tax payer has adequate credit in his cash ledger or credit ledger. In essence, credit cannot be equated with cash remittances.
HC Held that in the present case the department vide Form GST DRC-09 issued communication to the bank to recover the due from the petition u/s 79 without issuance of notice u/s 74(1) and without giving opportunity of being heard is not proper.
Upon remittance of pre-deposit of 10%, balance remain stayed and hence no justification for continuation of the bank attachments.
Held that due date/ time limit for filing return in TRAN 1 seeking transition of credit and due date/ time limit for revision of TRAN 1 cannot be same.
White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd Vs Additional Commissioner (Madras High Court) No Service Tax to be levied on fitment and preparation of scalp to make Wig The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of M/s White Cliffs Hair Studio Private Ltd v. Additional Commissioner, Office of the Principal Commissioner of CGST and […]
The petitioner attempted to file a representation to revoke the cancellation of registration. The same was not accepted, since the request for revocation is not filed within the statutory period of 90 (30+60) days. The representation for revocation of cancellation of registration could not be done.
Held that impugned award set aside as the same was passed rejecting the counter claim, which was duly filed within the time limit, as being time barred.
Held that that the cut/ sized shade trees would constitute agricultural produce and therefore, fall outside the purview of TNGST Act, 1959.
