Madras HC rules in favor of Vinayaga Agencies, granting input tax credit under Section 19(1) of TNVAT Act, despite seller’s failure to deposit tax.
Madras High Court rules that GST orders cannot exceed defects in Show Cause Notice. Case of Tvl. Senthil Hardwares vs. State Tax Officer.
Madras HC rules limitation period for GST appeals starts from rectification order date, clarifying doubts on timeframes for challenging assessment orders.
The writ petitioner company is non-deposit taking Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) having license from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for functioning as a Micro Finance Institution (MFI) registered with RBI.
If the authorities decide not to entertain the said request, he shall give detailed reasons as to why the said order is being made. Further proceedings, pursuant to DRC- O7 notice dated 02.01.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.
Madras High Court quashes refund rejection order for lack of detailed information in SCN, emphasizing the principle of fair hearing under Audi Alteram Partem.
Madras High Court held that petitioner being unaware of initiation of proceedings are directed to deposit 25% of disputed tax and submit objections by treating impugned assessment order as show cause notice.
Madras High Court held that the coinsurance premium and re-insurance commission would not be considered as supply and hence not liable to pay GST. Thus, amount deposited by petitioners are entitled for refund.
Madras HC orders GSTN to allow return filing and payment after petitioner’s registration was canceled due to non-compliance, citing genuine reasons for delay.
Thereafter, a detailed reply was issued by the petitioner, through its counsel, on 18.08.2021. According to the petitioner, no order was communicated by the first and second respondents after the above mentioned reply was issued.
