-
Under the scheme of IGST, supplies to SEZ unit and SEZ developer are treated at par with physical exports. The exporting units to compete with world market need raw materials without payment of taxes and duties and either the denial of zero-rated tax benefit or calling upon the assessee to pay 18% tax and claim refund is not in line with statutory scheme.
Lalitha Muraleedharan vs. The Range Forest Office, The Pr. Chief Conservator and The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3528 (HC-KERALA)
-
The entire concept of refund of ITC relating to zero-rated supply would be obliterated if the Revenue were permitted to put any limitation and condition that takes away assessee’s right to claim refund of all the taxes paid on the domestic purchases used for the purpose of zero-rated supplies.
Pitambra Books Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3527 (HC-DELHI)
-
It is not open for the authorities to reject the applications/bid for non compliance of the condition(s) not mentioned or highlighted in the tender notification. The action of the Revenue in rejecting the tender application/technical bid of the petitioner as arbitrary, contrary to the tender notification, liable to be set aside.
Bhagwati Construction Company vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3523 (HC-HP)
-
As the notice for confiscation has been issued, it is expected of the writ applicant now to file an appropriate detailed reply to the same, for the purpose of getting such notice discharged.
AVH Corporation vs. State of Gujarat
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3522 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
All proceedings pursuant to penalty order shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is rendered on the appeal.
Sobha Ltd vs. The Assistant State Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3521 (HC-KERALA)
-
Petitioner is directed to provide requisite proof in form of monthly returns to establish that the tax on goods was paid. If the tax is not paid, then petitioner shall provide a bank guarantee of the tax amount within two weeks.
Brij Gopal Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3520 (HC-DELHI)
-
The petitioner was awarded two separate works against which tax was deducted but the petitioner was not extended credit for the same despite repeated reminders.
Raju K. Thomas vs. The State Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3519 (HC-KERALA)
-
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)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.