Writ petition filed by assessee challenging a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) order on alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit ( ITC ) was rejected holding that the dispute did not fall under Section 16(4) and that the proper remedy lay in filing an appeal.
Madras High Court held that cancellation of GST registration for non-compliance with relevant provision of GST Act not justified since the reason of slowdown in business is genuine. Accordingly, restoration of GST registration ordered.
Madras High Court held that filing of a fresh refund claim in terms of section 27 (1-B) of the Customs Act not required as refund claim was duly filed within limitation of one year from the date of import. Accordingly, writ of petitioner stands allowed.
Madras High Court held that withdrawal of appeal under GST by inadvertently mentioning wrong assessment year by the auditor is restored back since the reason provided is found genuine. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Madras High Court held that writ filed alleging wrong classification of goods cannot be entertained due to availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before CESTAT. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Madras High Court held that date of receipt of copy of order is to be accepted in absence of any contrary evidence by the respondents/ department. Accordingly, dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation not justified. Hence, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
Revenue submitted that the order was issued in order to meet statutory limitation deadlines. During the hearing, both assessee and the authority agreed that assessee had an alternate remedy under Section 246A, along with the option to seek condonation of delay under Section 249(3).
Madras High Court held that delay of one day in filing of an appeal under GST is condonable since the reason assigned for the delay appears to be genuine. Accordingly, the delay condoned and writ allowed.
Since assessee was not allowed an opportunity to present all Bank Realization Certificates (BRCs) for the concerned shipping bills and produced documents before the authorities to substantiate that they were not liable to return the drawback amount.
Madras High Court held that matter is to be remitted back for fresh orders on merits in view of non-filing of reply and non-attending personal hearing since petitioner has already deposited entire disputed tax for some period and petitioner is further directed to pay 15% of disputed tax for pending period.
