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.
Madras High Court held that petitioner failed to reply since GST show cause notice was only uploaded on the GST portal and petitioner was unaware about the same. Accordingly, impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to respondent for fresh consideration.
The Madras High Court ruled that the limitation period for a GST appeal begins only when an order is effectively communicated, not from a simple portal upload.
Madras High Court held that it is not permissible for Central Tax Authorities to initiate proceedings on same subject matter on which audit already conducted by State Tax Authorities. Accordingly, notice quashed as violative of section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Madras High Court held that any order travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice is not maintainable. Thus, impugned assessment order under GST was passed beyond the scope of show cause notice is liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court held that completion of assessment on best judgement as the petitioner had not shown cause in response to the notice vis-à-vis assessment made after several years of return filing. Hence, matter restored back for providing opportunity of being heard to petitioner.
Madras High Court held that a cooperative society could file a statutory GST appeal without further pre-deposit as the disputed tax of Rs.1.86 crore was already paid. The Court confirmed proper natural justice was observed during proceedings.
