In the present case, the petitioner had made an application for refund under Section 54 of the Act and when the respondent had issued notice to them for rejection of the ineligible goods and services of SGST, CGST and IGST, they have given a detailed reply, objecting to the All these objections were required to be dealt with by the authority, before taking a final call, which is conspicuously absent.
whether non furnishing of scrutiny report to the assessee and then passing an adverse order based on the said scrutiny report is justified in law?
Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court) Joint DGFT has no powers to review his own orders in view of Section 16 of the FTDR Act. There can be no review of an earlier refund except in accordance with the provision of Section 16 of the FTDR Act, which only permits the […]
The present Writ Petitions relate to restriction of the amount of Input Tax Credit (ITC) predominantly on the head of (a) Prior sufferance of Taxes; (b) ITC on reversal on wastage; and (c) Ineligible claim of ITC on goods.
The issue under consideration is whether the rejection of refund of additional custom duty merely because the model number is missing in sale invoice is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the custom notification for increasing the duty on peas will be levied on retrospective basis or prospective basis?
the petitioner seek quashing of notification for increasing the rate of tax payable in respect of Petrol and Diesel and fixing the same at 28% and 21.8% respectively.
the petitioner is seeking provisional released for the goods seized by the customs officer due to mis-declaration of the cargo in order to circumvent the import restriction imposed by the extant Foreign Trade Policy.
Jansons Industries Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) High Court of Madras held that orders are contrary to law insofar as they are non-speaking and have been issued in violation of principles of natural justice, despite the specific request of the petitioner for personal hearing. High Court held that The impugned orders as […]
whether the commissioner is justified in withholding the delivery order for the 1×40′ container, by insisting for clearance of the dispute against the 2×20′ containers?
