Madras HC allows Aashi Creations to re-export seized consignment pending adjudication, subject to a bond covering differential duty and a 20% bank guarantee on redetermined value.
The Madras High Court ruled that a GST summary demand order in Form DRC-07 is invalid if the mandatory show-cause notice in Form DRC-01 was not issued first, even if a preliminary notice (DRC-01A) was sent.
Madras High Court compels Assistant Commissioner (CT) to refund ₹1.14 Cr in excess VAT paid by Madhucon Projects for AY 2008-09, upholding the Single Judge’s order.
The Madras High Court directed GST authorities to lift the bank attachment on former Director Subir Ghosh and treat the recovery notice as a show cause, company’s tax arrears under Section 89 of the GST Act.
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.
