Madras High Court held that petitioner duly provided detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, whereas, impugned order was passed without stating reasons for rejecting the claim. Such impugned order being a cryptic and non-speaking is liable to be quashed.
HC held that, State Tax Authority cannot prosecute assessee, when Central Tax Authority already initiated action in respect of same matter
HC quashed the Order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the refund application of the assessee, on the grounds that, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided, which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, directed the Revenue Department to pass an order after adhering to the principles of natural justice, considering on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks.
If the defects are similar in SCNs than Parallel proceedings cannot be initiated by Central/State GST Authorities on same subject matter
Penalty for claiming input tax credit based on bogus tax invoices / debit notes – On a prima facie consideration, the show cause notice sent to the petitioner by the respondents is also bald and cryptic and the exact details of the violations committed by the petitioner have not been disclosed in the said show cause notice.
High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, does not have power to condone delay when statutory appeal filed under section 107 of GST Act is beyond maximum time limit stipulated
Ramanujan Venkatesan Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals- II) (Madras High Court) In this case date of communication to writ petitioner qua the GST Registration cancellation order is 08.03.2022. Three months therefrom elapsed on 08.06.2022 i.e., the prescribed period qua Section 107 of CG&ST Act elapsed on 08.06.2022. Condonable period of one month thereafter elapsed on 08.07.2022. […]
Appeal against GST Registration cancellation order filed after stipulated time limit – Power of High Court to condone delay in such appeal filing – Registry directed to place matter before Chief Justice of High court as two contradictory views expressed by two Hon’ble Judges of Madras High Court.
HC held that Demand order passed beyond the period of 7 days from the date of service of notice is contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act
Whether value of seized goods/bundles were valued between Rs. 4500 -5000 per bundle or Rs .20,000/- cannot be determined in a writ proceedings
