-
Period of one year has elapsed since the interim order directing release of bank accounts of the assessee was passed by the co-ordinate bench. The life of an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is one year i.e. December 27, 2019 in present case and no fresh order of provisional attachment has been passed.
Messrs Mono Steel (India) Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3518 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Release of consignment and vehicle subject to petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty amount determined in the notice is directed.
Shaji George vs. The Commissioner Kerala State Goods and Service Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3517 (HC-KERALA)
-
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.
Bindal Smelting Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3516 (HC-P&H)
-
The order of provisional attachment as well as the order of prohibition are not sustainable on two counts, i.e. the order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order has been passed without any credible materials.
Enprocon Enterprise Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3515 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Copy of Madras HC order staying the order of allowing transition of Education Cess (EC), Secondary & Higher Education Cess (SHEC) & Krishi Kalyan Cess (KKC) into GST which is passed by a single Judge is now available on the portal.
Sutherland Global Services Ltd Vs Revenue
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3513 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The complainant had himself withdrawn the complaint and despite that the authority had continued to proceed with the matter which is not permissible under Section 171 or the Rules made thereunder.
Shree Mahalakshmi Enterprises Vs Revenue
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3512 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Plaintiff took no action for nearly 10 years after issuing a legal notice to the them, asserting the same right as far back as in 2009. Despite it being so, the fact today remains that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark w.r.t. rice, and Defendants who have disclaimed all rights in the mark, can’t be permitted to defeat the rights accruing from a registered mark.
In the matter of Adani Wilmar Ltd. vs. Baljit Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3511 (HC-DELHI)
-
Rice in its natural form with its essential characteristics remaining intact is classified in Chapter 10. FRK is not covered in the said chapter as essential characteristics and property of rice is changed from granule to flour.
In the matter of JVS Foods Pvt Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3507 (AAR)
-
Sl. No. 23 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017- State Tax (Rate) which covers Food preparations not elsewhere specified or included (Other than items such as roasted gram, sweetmeats, batters including idli/dosa batter, namkeens,etc.) and falls under Heading 2106 is applicable to Fried Fryums.
In the matter of Alisha Foods
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3506 (AAR)
-
Though the Revenue clarified that the press release itself was a mistake having not decision to extend the time limit till December 31, 2017, the assessee cannot be deprived of the substantive benefit under the GST Act merely on account of a technical lapse insisted upon by the Revenue.
A.F. Babu vs. Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3505 (HC-KERALA)
-
Merely because two views are possible, a court sitting in judicial review shall not exercise its discretion in favour of an alternative view to that of the authority while finding no palpable infirmity in the classification of the product in the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
Dabur India Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of CGST, Ghaziabad and 4 Others
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3503 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
-
No tax is leviable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ocean freight for the services provided by a person located in a non-taxable territory by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India upto the customs station of clearance in India.
Mohit Mineral Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3502 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Rule 159(1) states that when the Commissioner decides to attach any property including the bank account, he shall pass an order in form GST DRC-22. Form GST DRC-22 lays down the format in which the order has to be issued provisionally attaching the property and the communication thereof to the financial institution.
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. The Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3501 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Filters cannot be considered as Parts of railway locomotives and therefore, cannot be classified under Chapter Heading 86.07.
In the matter of Parker Hannifin India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3498 (AAR)
-
The correct way to read the entry Sl. No. 80 of Schedule II would be all diagnostic kits and all reagents and to limit the term reagents in the rate Notification as being applicable only to diagnostic reagents is an incorrect interpretation. Use of the word reagents in the entry Sl. No. 80 of Schedule II should be understood as a generic word encompassing all the reagents mentioned under Heading 3822 of the Customs Tariff.
In the matter of Chromachemie Laboratory Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3497 (AAR)
-
The Corrigendum Letter dated September 24, 2019 was issued by the Superintending Engineer (T & C), RRVPNL, Cittorgarh specifying that GST @18% applicable on cost of Infrastructure for Value of Supply. After issuance of said corrigendum, the question raised by the applicant turned redundant and therefore no advance ruling is required to be given.
In the matter of SLN Tech-Fabs (Bengaluru) Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3494 (AAR)
-
The Corrigendum Letter dated September 24, 2019 was issued by the Superintending Engineer (T & C), RRVPNL, Cittorgarh specifying that GST @18% applicable on cost of Infrastructure for Value of Supply. After issuance of said corrigendum, the question raised by the applicant turned redundant and therefore no advance ruling is required to be given.
In the matter of Wonder Cement Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3493 (AAR)
-
The section 16(1) of CGST Act, 2017 does not make any distinction between capital goods and other goods for allowing credit of ITC. Hence, ITC in respect of capital goods, is available and can be taken, since ITC credit for capital goods is in parity with other goods.
In the matter of Chowgule Industries Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3492 (AAR)
-
There is nothing on the record of this case to show that the petitioner Company had not acted bona fidely, particularly in view of the fact that the transaction relates to the early stages in which the GST regime had been implemented, and there might be some confusion prevailing at that initial stage. In that view of the matter, we do not find any plausible reason whatsoever, to deny the petitioner Company the benefit of the provisions of Section 77 (1) of the CGST Act, read with Section 19(2) of the IGST Act.
Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.vs. The Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3491 (HC-JHARKHAND)
-
Questions relating to requirement of GST registration in another state is beyond advance ruling jurisdiction.
In the matter of T & D Electricals
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3487 (AAR)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.