-
The Respondent (Karnataka Co- operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.) had sought advance ruling in respect of classification of ‘Flavoured Milk’, however an investigation was already pending against the Respondent on the same issue of classification by the Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
In the matter of Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3618 (AAR)
-
Unutilized credit arising on account of duty/tax paid under erstwhile regime cannot be taken away on procedural or technical grounds of non-filing or incorrect filing of Form i.e. TRAN-1 by the stipulated last date i.e. December 27, 2017.
Union of India & Ors. vs. Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3615 (SC)
-
Prima facie, it appears to us that the impugned order needs consideration and the petitioner has been able to make out a strong case for grant of interim relief. Till the next date, we stay the operation of the impugned order.
Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3613 (HC-DELHI)
-
The aspect as to whether a pending proceeding before GST authority was also a proceeding as provided in Section 14 (1) (a) had not been examined by the Commissioner of GST and consequently the implication thereof i.e. if it was a proceeding whether the order of moratorium would also cover the said proceeding, had also not been looked into.
National Plywood Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3612 (HC-GAUHATI)
-
Milk chilling and packing service provided by the contractors were exempted as per Serial No. 24 of Notification 11/2017- Central Tax (Rate).
Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3611 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Petitioner is directed to appear before the appropriate authority wherein the proceedings shall commence afresh, providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner along with placing record additional material, if so required.
Gaya Marketing vs. The State of Bihar
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3609 (HC-PATNA)
-
If the Petitioner fails to approach the authority within prescribed time, it shall be open for the authority to take coercive action in accordance with the law.
Vishwanath Iron Store vs. The State of Bihar
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3608 (HC-PATNA)
-
It is now for the applicant to make good his case that the show cause notice, issued in GST-MOV-10, deserves to be discharged.
Hanuman Trading Co. vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3607 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
One cannot lose sight of the difficulties faced by assessees in transitioning into the new medium/procedure set out under the GST regime as this is common and public knowledge.
Samrajyaa and Company vs. Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3606 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Distinction between a particular power to be exercised and power to be exercised based on the reasonable belief of the authority does not make any difference. The very same reasonable belief will be that of the authority upon whom the power is delegated. The power under Section 69 of the Act can be exercised by the authority upon whom the power is delegated provided the delegatee has reasons to believe that the assessee has committed offence under Section 132 of the Act. Therefore, the condition precedent, i.e. reasonable belief, for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 69 of the Act remains the same.
Nathalal Maganlal Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3600 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
Typographic error may be treated as a minor error.
In the matter of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3599 (AAR)
-
We consider it appropriate and proper that, in the interests of a uniform and consistent view on the law, all the writ petitions should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi, where earlier writ petitions are already pending.
The National Anti-Profiteering Authority vs. Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3598 (SC)
-
The notification has to be read in the context of the EPCG policy keeping in mind the object envisaged by the policy and not in the strict sense as in the case of a general exemption under section 25 of the Customs Act.
Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3597 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
The order states that assessee did not file reply to show cause notice, however, assessee's reply was duly endorsed by Revenue authorities as received prior to date of the cancellation order.
Great Sands Consulting Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3596 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The writ benefit cannot be extended to such indolent persons who sleeps over their rights and duties without any plausible explanation and justification and now at the belated stage woke up from slumber and is trying to get a relief from the High Court without any bonafide ground.
Jagadamba Hardware Stores vs. Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3593 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
Restriction placed on GSTN as to rectification of invoice number is not supported by the provisions of law and is completely arbitrary.
Pawan Kumar Karnani vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3592 (HC-DELHI)
-
Government has extended date for filing or revising the earlier filed incorrect TRAN-1 till December 31, 2019.
Silicon Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3591 (HC-P&H)
-
Prima facie it appeared that the limitation period of six months provided in Rule 133 of the CCGST Rules, 2017 within which the authority should make its order from the date of receipt of the report of the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, appeared to be directory inasmuch as no consequence of non-adherence of the said period of 6 months was prescribed either in the CGST Act or the Rules framed thereunder.
Nestle India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3589 (HC-DELHI)
-
The demand notice was only a format as is required under the guidelines framed under the Rules and the proceedings shall be drawn only against the owner of goods.
Shankar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3584 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
-
Revenue issued notices withholding the payments of wages to the petitioner from Government/semi Government Institutions while observing petitioner’s willingness to pay the GST amount if any, quantified and intimated.
The Secretary vs. The Director General of GST Intelligence & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3583 (HC-KERALA)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.