Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte tax order against Standard Press, remanding the dispute over whether compounded tax under TNGST Act overrides statutory sales exemptions.
Madras High Court held that penalty under section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act [FERA] is not applicable since unrealised export proceeds is less than 10%. Accordingly, writ appeals are allowed and order is quashed.
Madras HC set aside rejection of refund under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act for a cotton yarn manufacturer, holding that CBIC Circular No.135/05/2020-GST cannot override statutory provisions. The court relied on rulings of other High Courts that had struck down the circular as ultra vires.
Provisional release order by substituting the bank guarantee requirement with a bond of equivalent amount, while retaining other conditions. The Court emphasized that onerous financial conditions prior to adjudication are unwarranted, especially for non-prohibited goods, and directed release upon compliance within seven days.
Madras High Court held that petitioner has placed on record sufficient evidence proving financial capability of partners for capital contribution. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back for reconsideration.
Madras High Court directs petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount and quashed impugned order since petitioner failed to furnish reply to GST SCN. Accordingly, court also directs to furnish reply within stipulated time period.
Madras High Court held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 not admissible without a valid ASEAN-India Free Trade Area [AIFTA] certificate. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed.
The court held that the BIS registration exemption under the Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024, applies to micro enterprises even for imports, directing clearance of goods without requiring BIS certification.
Madras High Court modified the conditions for provisional release of goods [Viscose Knitted Fabric] due to alleged undervaluation and misclassification and directed to pay entire declared duty; 50% of differential duty and execute bond of specified sum.
Voluntary admission of turnover suppression made by a dealer at the time of inspection carried strong evidentiary value and could not be retracted without credible evidence. Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment, as their reasoning was contrary to the evidence on record.
