In present facts of the case, it was observed by Hon’ble High Court that Section 132(6) of CGST Act, would be required only after the conclusion of the investigation and at the stage of presentation of charge-sheet/final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Loyalty Solutions And Research Private Limited Vs Union Of India And Others (Punjab & Haryana High Court) The Designated Committee constituted under Amnesty Scheme vide impugned order dated 24.02.2020 (P-19) rejected declaration filed with respect to appeal pending before Tribunal on the ground that petitioner has filed single declaration with respect to four show cause […]
Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Director General (Punjab & Haryana High Court) The object and intention of legislature to endow Commissioner with power of attachment under Section 83 is very clear. It is drastic and far-reaching power which must be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons. The power should […]
Kaushal Kumar Mishra Vs. Additional Director General, Ludhiana Zonal Unit And Another (High Court Of Punjab And Haryana) High Court held that we are of the view that the investigations being conducted by competent Officers against the petitioner are not hit by provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act, 2017. So, we see no reason […]
Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India And Ors. (Punjab And Haryana High Court) The petitioner has straightway approached this Court, challenging the order dated 11.09.2020 of the Adjudicating Authority, vide which the refund claimed by the petitioner has been rejected. Having heard the counsel for the parties and on going through the pleadings […]
Application of bail by assessee was rejected as assessee had created three fake firms for procuring bills from the firms based at Delhi who had no purchases and tax which was not deposited for these transaction was utilized by the firms for not only availing ITCs but for getting the refunds by showing the sales to export units. Thus, refund was received for the tax which was actually never received by Revenue.
Pro Sportify Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (Punjab and Haryana High Court) The Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, thus any enquiry/audit/investigation initiated after aforesaid date cannot make any person ineligible because period running from 01.09.2019 to 31.12.2019 is meant for filing application and […]
Himanshu Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax (Punjab & Haryana High Court) In the present case Section 83 order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner. As per the counsel for the respondents the order itself reveals that it was passed with the consent of the Commissioner. However, this would not be […]
Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Union of India (Punjab & Haryana High Court) Learned counsel for the NCB has also placed reliance on Whatsapp messages by which the petitioner could be implicated. However, on the asking of this Court, whether a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is available at the present moment […]
Mahadev Enclave Pvt Ltd Vs. Union Of India And Ors (High Court of Punjab & Haryana) Punjab & Haryana HC issued notice of motion on plea challenging validity of levy of tax on the payment of royalty made to the Govt. of Punjab for mineral rights under reverse charge mechanism The petitioner, M/s Mahadev Enclave […]
