The High Court held that once concessional late fee under Section 47 is paid for delayed GSTR-9 filing, a separate general penalty under Section 125 cannot be imposed. The additional penalty was quashed.
The High Court set aside the rejection of an appeal filed with a 214-day delay, holding that the petitioner’s explanation regarding the accountant’s failure was genuine. The delay was condoned subject to payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit.
Madras High Court held that when no response is received on portal notices, officers must explore alternative service modes under Section 169. The ex parte order was quashed and remanded for fresh hearing.
Madras High Court directed provisional release of detained second-hand MFDs, following earlier orders in similar cases. Release is subject to conditions and final adjudication.
Madras High Court held that the Settlement Commission did not adequately scrutinize the detailed explanation of undisclosed income. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 245C.
The Madras High Court held that issuance of show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act is mandatory before confiscation of goods. Even alleged waiver by the importer cannot override statutory and natural justice requirements.
The Madras High Court quashed GST assessment orders passed under Section 74 after finding that no personal hearing was granted. The Court held that denying a hearing violates principles of natural justice and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Madras High Court quashed assessment under Section 74 as no personal hearing was granted and the same assessment year was reassessed for higher demand.
The Court refused to interfere with the reassessment order, noting that sufficient opportunity was provided pursuant to a remand. Financial crisis was held not to be a valid ground to set aside the assessment.
The Madras High Court directed customs authorities to consider and decide a representation seeking provisional release of imported goods within four weeks. The Court held that deciding the request would not prejudice the ongoing investigation.
