Impugned order under clause (d) of Section 148A of the Act was issued on April 1, 2022 without taking the petitioner’s response to the initial notice into consideration.
The bank is only the custodian of the money of the customers and has to comply with the instructions of such customers. In case of insufficiency of funds, the bank is only to report the same and as such, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be liable for any act of the customer who has issued the cheque which was later dishonoured.
The Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax Vs Amrit Cement Limited (Meghalaya High Court) The eligibility or entitlement to obtain cenvat credit, in terms of Section 140(1) of the Act of 2017, is based on whether the matter is reflected in the return which is filed as per the existing law in the manner prescribed; […]
High Court of Meghalaya stays demand related to SCN issued by DGGI related to recovery of GST on royalty paid for mining rights to the State.
Saj Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Meghalaya & ors (Meghalaya High Court) What is apparent in this case is that the petitioner may be using the same raw material as in the manufacture of bread, whereupon the petitioner manufactures a form of bread and refines the same to rusk. The process has been […]
Meghalaya High Court held that State had no authority to impose cess in terms of the Meghalaya Cement Cess Act, 2010 and by annulling the Act as ultra vires the Constitution and requiring the State to refund 20 percent of the amount realized on such count from the individual petitioners to such petitioners
