Tarmal Industrial Supply Company Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) Non-speaking order – the show cause notice issued prior to passing of the impugned order does not stipulate even basic details such as the date and time of hearing – the requirement of passing a speaking order has been entirely frustrated in so far […]
Madras High Court held that as renewal fee relating to L-2 license under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 was paid within a period of one month from the date of expiry of renewal period, L-2 license should be duly issued.
Madras High Court held that it is clear that section 64(4) of the TNVAT Act doesnt empower the Commissioner to delegate the power to pass order to any lower authority.
Madras High Court held that any order made under Section 220 (6) of the Income Tax must be a speaking order. Accordingly, impugned order set aside as being cryptic and non-speaking.
Madras High Court directed Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order, after hearing the petitioner in full, with regard to determination of appropriate rate of tax on Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF).
Madras High Court held that the proper method for assessing the turnover from works contract is as per Rule 8(5). Accordingly, it was directed to redone de novo applying the methodology set out under rule 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.
Azam Laminators (P) Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had effected sale of M.G. Plain Kraft Paper to a merchant exporter, who, in turn had received a purchase order from a buyer from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for Parcel Leaf Size and that the […]
Madras High Court held that proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act invalid as detention order and notice was not served within the prescribed time limit.
In present facts of the case, the Honble Madras High Court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner have alternative remedy to file appeal and have also directed to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- for saving the premises from getting sealed by authorities.
HC held that the filing of a reply to the show-cause notice in form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9) and 76(3) of CGST Act and reply so filed through post shall also be treated as valid.
