Offence report under Regulation 17(1) Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, need not necessarily have a penal connotation. COC had miserably failed to discharge the obligation cast on him to show that the impugned action was initiated within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report.
The Madras High Court dismissed Tvl. Saravana Projects & Co.’s writ against a confirmed GST demand for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC), finding no procedural defects in the order. The court noted the writ was filed after the statutory delay condonation period for appeal expired.
The Madras High Court quashed an order levying 1% GST on a corporate guarantee furnished to a related party, ruling that the assessing officer failed to consider two relevant CBIC Circulars. The court remanded the matter back to the State Tax Officer for a fresh determination after considering the petitioner’s defense, which relied on the recipient being eligible for full Input Tax Credit.
Where the Commissioner of Customs issued a Public Notice directing Container Freight Stations (CFSs) not to collect GST on auction sales of uncleared cargo under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, such notice was without jurisdiction, as the levy of GST was governed by the CGST Act and not by the Customs authorities.
Rejecting the petitioner’s request to keep recovery in abeyance, the Madras HC directed the assessee to comply with the mandatory 20% pre-deposit for AY 2019-2020. Failure to pay will result in the initiation of coercive recovery measures.
Facing arguments that ITC must remain blocked during an investigation against a supplier, the Madras HC ordered GST authorities to reconsider the blocked ITC claim under Rule 86A(2) after getting inputs from the State Authority.
The Madras High Court allowed TVS Srichakra Limited’s plea, declaring Notification Nos. 14/2017, 15/2017, and 16/2017 ultra vires for exceeding the scope of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and quashed related show cause notices.
The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order because the Tax Officer’s claim of ‘no documents submitted’ was factually contradicted by the records, which indicated a reply with enclosures was filed. The case is remitted for a fresh hearing and order.
Division Bench held that notices must be issued by Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO), following Bombay High Court ruling in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and declared notices by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers invalid.
The Madras High Court ruled that absence of pre-consultation does not invalidate a show cause notice, holding that departmental circulars are not legally binding.
