Patna High Court held that petition against order rejecting GST refund cannot be entertained in view of available statutory remedy under section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Patna High Court held that since owner of the crane was not an accused in NDPS case, thus auction of his crane without any notice and without providing opportunity of being heard is unlawful. Accordingly, criminal writ petition is allowed.
Court held that pre-show cause consultation is not required when the case is booked for evasion or suppression, and advised the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies.
Where inspection reports and material evidence establish non-functional business activity and assessee failed to avail opportunities for hearing, cancellation of registration under Rule 21 of the BGST Rules could not be faulted. Writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal.
High Court denied pre-arrest bail to a trader found selling fake branded goods without GST invoices, holding such acts cause financial loss to the State and endanger consumers.
Quasi-judicial authorities were obliged to render reasoned and speaking orders, and that reasons should have been assigned by the adjudicating authority to the extent whether the circulars adduced by assessee were applicable to their case or not. Accordingly, the High Court held that the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority were unsustainable, proceeding to quash the impugned orders while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority.
Patna High Court allowed bail application in illegal mining matter as twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA Act] satisfied and also petitioner already undergone nearly 12 months of incarceration. Accordingly, bail application allowed.
In a case against the Union of India, the Patna High Court quashed a Betel Nut seizure memo, stating that mere citation of statutes is insufficient.
Patna High Court held that seizure memo without recording mandatory ‘reason to believe’ as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, order of confiscation is liable to be quashed.
The Court held that failure to notify authorities via DRC-01B cannot justify action under Sections 73/74 if returns were duly filed and no tax dues remained.
