KCP Infra Limited Vs Principal Secretary (Madras High Court) Madras High Court held that on account of revision of GST rate on works contract to 18% instead of earlier 12%, the court directed the National Highway Authorities to revise GST rates on bills raised by the petitioner (works contractor). Facts- The petitioner is a Works […]
Madras High Court granted short accommodation to make further submissions in the case of revocation of cancellation of GST registration.
Madras High Court held that as test report of petitioner and respondent differs, it is directed to carry out independent laboratory test to come to a conclusion that the whether the imported goods contained Polyrethrene or not to decide levy of Anti-dumping duty.
Under Sections 73(1) and 74(1) of CGST Act, proceedings can be initiated for mere wrong availing of Input Tax Credit followed by imposition of interest penalty if such credit was not only availed but also utilised for discharging tax liability.
Madras High Court held that rectification petition filed after 5 years under Section 84(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 from the date of assessment order is unwarranted in law.
Madras High Court held that granting of personal hearing before submission of defence reply cannot be said to be in compliance of section 75(4) of TNGST Act, 2017. Accordingly, impugned order set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
HC quashed demand order passed by Revenue Department, on the grounds that reply filed by assessee to SCN was not considered even though the same was received by Revenue Department.
Madras High Court held that no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 75 (4) of the GST Act, 2017 and importantly adverse decision is taken by the respondent. Hence, impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Madras High Court held that as writ is filed, in the matter of differential duty in respect of portable emergency lamp, after a lapse of almost sixteen years, the same needs reconsideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Madras High Court held that as the petitioner proved that amount payable under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019 (SVLDRS) as per form SVLDRS-3 was paid on the due date, however, the amount was credit on the next day i.e. one pay after the due date. The application submitted by the petitioner under SVLDRS should be processed.
