Jet Freight Logistics Limited Vs CIT Appeal (NFAC) (ITAT Mumbai) It is evident that assessee is in continuous need for payment of cash at various point of time and hence, assessee had to withdraw cash in order to satisfy its business requirements. Moreover, the assessee has got 9 branches all over India and such cash […]
Brij Mohan Mangla Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court) In this case In terms of Orders passed by Appellate Authority, the orders rejecting petitioner’s application for GST refund have been set aside. The Appellate Authority has also directed restoration of the petitioner’s GSTIN registration. The record also indicates that the petitioner thereafter once again […]
Delhi High Court held that Court has the power to exercise discretion to waive requirement of pre-deposit of penalty in rare and deserving cases.
Held that section 16-B of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (HPGST) would be attracted only after determination of the liability.
Orissa High Court held that the essential component of Section 43(2) of the OVAT Act for attracting the penalty, viz., the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the escapement of tax was without reasonable cause, is absent in the present case. Accordingly, imposition of penalty unjustified.
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value and determining the value based on the contemporaneous value available in National Import Database (NIDB) correct as quantity of goods is much larger than what was declared; buyer and seller are related parties and grade of guar gum is mis-declared.
Orissa High Court held that there is mis-match of Rs. 5,18,230/- as against the reflected figure in RFD-01 at Rs. 2,22,97,228/-. Accordingly, court directed to refund the balance amount as only Rs. 5,18,230/- needs proper adjudication.
Opposite Party to pay a compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the Complainant for wrong cutting the her hair.
IOCL was not entitled for the conversion of DEEC shipping bills to drawback shipping bills since it was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected by the competent authority and for the reason for non-filing of the requisite documents in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act as well as the Circular.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that the term ‘permanently’ in 4th Proviso to rule 9 of Pan Masala Packing Machine Rules is clearly related to a particular month and not forever.
