Orrisa High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount refunded with respect to IGST paid on ocean freight. Accordingly, competent authority is directed to pay simple interest @6% per annum on amount of refund.
The issue was rejection of a GST appeal filed beyond the initial limitation period. The Court held that delay within the condonable period must be considered and granted the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Orissa High Court held that legal heir cannot fall within ken of Section 65(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 hence proceedings under section 73 of the Finance Act determining service tax after the death of the service provider is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.
Orissa High Court held that mere uploading of demand-cum-show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 on GST portal under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’ resulted into non-participation. Hence, the ex-parte order passed thereon is quashed and case is remanded back.
The court held that repeated resignation of key accounts staff constituted genuine hardship. Rejection of delay condonation under Section 119(2)(b) was set aside, directing acceptance of the belated return.
The High Court stayed GST recovery proceedings after finding that the audit report triggering the demand was issued by an officer lacking statutory authority, indicating a prima facie jurisdictional defect.
Orissa High Court held that recovery towards arrear electricity duty demand set aside since there is procedural flaw in Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 [OPDR proceeding] and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Orissa High Court held that post grant of refund by Assistant Commissioner, the recourse to adjudicate upon the same objection/content under Section 73 without giving due deference to the quasi judicial Appellate Order is unconscionable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
The Court set aside a rectification rejection passed before the scheduled hearing date, holding that Section 154(3) requires a prior opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with natural justice.
The Court set aside rejection of a waiver application after the taxpayer deposited IGST under RCM in cash, holding that statutory conditions were ultimately satisfied.
