Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Quashes SCN & Order Lacking Reasons For Retrospective Cancellation Of GST Registration

Case Title: Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax

The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was lacking reasons for retrospective cancellation of GST registration.

'Cash' Excluded From Definition Of 'Goods', Can't Be Seized: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has directed the respondent department to forfeit or remit the cash seized from the premises of the petitioner to the petitioner along with interest.

Bombay High Court

Deficiency In Filing Appeal Can't Make Appeal Filed Within Prescribed Period Of Limitation To Be Labelled As Time Barred: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that any deficiency in filing the appeal or application, like failure to file physical documents, cannot cause the appeal, which was registered on the online portal within the prescribed period of limitation, to be labelled and/or held to be barred by limitation.

Madras High Court

AO's Classification Of Harpic And Lizol Under 28% GST Slab Rate Is Without Application Of Mind: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that Ao's classification of Harpic and Lizol under the 28% GST slab rate is without application of mind.

Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court Quashes Commercial Tax Tribunal's Judgement For Non-Compliance Of Rule 63(5) Of U.P. V.A.T. Rules, 2008

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the Commercial Tax Tribunal's judgement for non-compliance with Rule 63(5) of the U.P.V.A.T. Rules, 2008.

GST & Central Excise Superintendent Has No Jurisdiction To Pass Order Exceeding Rs.10,00,000: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.

UPGST | Search And Seizure Of Godown Can't Result In Penalty Proceedings U/S 129 Of Act: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

CESTAT

Larger Period Of Limitation Not Applicable Where De-Bonding Was Done After Verification, Issuance Of No Dues Certificate: CESTAT

Case Title: Contacare Ophthalmics and Diagnostics Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-i

The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that where debonding was done after verification by Central Excise and issuance of a no-dues certificate, the larger period of limitation cannot apply.

In Absence Of Consignment Note, Services Cannot Be Considered As GTA Services, Service Tax Not Sustainable: CESTAT

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax (CESTAT) has held that in the absence of a consignment note, services cannot be considered GTA services, and the demand for service tax under the category of “goods transport agency” does not sustain.

Service Recipient In India Not Liable To Pay Service Tax When PE Of Foreign Service Provider Exists In India: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that under the purview of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, when a permanent establishment of the foreign service provider exists in India, the recipient of service in India cannot be made liable to pay service tax under the reverse charge mechanism.