Meghalaya High Court dismissed appeal, ruling that issues concerning service value must be appealed to Supreme Court under section 35L of Central Excise Act.
The Meghalaya High Court upholds the right of the assessee to claim interest on the refund of a deposit made ‘under protest’ during an investigation, despite the absence of a specific provision in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Meghalaya High Court held that extended period of limitation as per proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not invocable as there was no element of deceit or intention on the part of the assessee to evade duty.
Barua and Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. (Meghalaya High Court) The affidavit-in-reply filed by the assessee has robustly denied that the relevant email address to which the three notices of April, 2022 were issued belonged to the assesse or that such address had been furnished by any authorised officer of the […]
Proper Officer has allowed major of part of Transitional Credit, disallowing only minor part of total claim & imposed 100% penalty on disallowed credit because of ineligible claim by invoking Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017.
Meghalaya High Court orders the setting aside of a Section 148 notice due to procedural lapses, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the mandated seven-day response period.
In view of the apparent damage to the petitioning assessee’s manufacturing facility, a moratorium for a period of two months is granted. That is to say that the payment that was due in April, 2022 will not be deemed to have been defaulted and the payment due in May, 2022 need not be paid by the 15th day of this month.
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; […]
