The Madras High Court addressed the detention of imported goods by Genuine Spices, which Customs alleged were misdeclared.
Madras High Court allowed a Customs Broker, penalized for an importer’s misdeclaration, to file an appeal without the mandatory 7.5% pre-deposit, citing the need for joint appellate hearing.
The Madras High Court confirmed that a tax exemption cannot be claimed on inter-state purchases if the taxpayer fails to physically segregate these goods from local purchases, even with separate records.
Madras High Court held that inquiry report under Regulation 17 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018 [CBLR] submitted beyond the period of 90 days is against mandate provided under sub-Regulation (5) of Regulation 17 hence inquiry report is illegal, arbitrary and barred by limitation.
Madras High Court held that time limit of six years is reasonable time for passing of order under section 201 of the Income Tax Act in respect of non-residents. Accordingly, order impugning assessment years beyond six years is set aside.
While securing the Revenues interest under Section 110A of the Customs Act, conditions for provisional release should not be unduly harsh. Requirement to furnish Bank Guarantee of ₹22 lakhs was modified with execution of bond of Rs. 22 lakh.
Madras High Court held that MEIS would clearly qualify as an instrument u/s. 28AAA of the Customs Act bestowing financial or fiscal benefits, however, only Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] is empowered to cancel or suspend the same.
Scope of appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962, was limited, as the ruling obtained was binding on the persons mentioned in Section 28J of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Madras High Court set aside an ex-parte GST order (Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders v DCIT), ruling that repeatedly uploading notices to an unusual portal tab is insufficient service, violating natural justice. The Court advised using RPAD when online notice fails.
The Madras High Court allows an appeal by Tvl. Deepa Traders against a GST demand, condoning a 285-day delay. The court’s decision, citing the lack of a physical notice, directs the appellate authority to hear the case on its merits.
