Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 25 February To 3 March 2024

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 Case Title: Jagdish Bansal Versus Union Of India Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 251 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 Case Title: Shri Yogesh Rajendra Mehra Versus Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Raigad (appeal) 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 Case Title: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Versus State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 93 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 Case Title: M/S Rajansh Marble House Gomti Nagar Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow And Another 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 Case Title: M/S Mansoori Enterprises Versus U.O.I. 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 Case Title: M/S Gopi Chand Batra Traders v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that search and seizure of a godown of an assesee cannot be penalised in proceedings under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Directs Authorities To Follow Court Orders In IGST Refund Case Case Title: Real Prince Spintex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 17 The Gujarat High Court, in its decision on a special civil application, while emphasising the binding nature of its directions on respondent-authorities, stated that once the Court issues directions, they hold authority over the respondent-authorities, and consequently, the respondent-authorities are obligated to adhere to the directions issued by the Court when exercising their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Gujarat High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused in Rs. 67.72 Crore GST Fraud Case Case Title: Shyamlal Parag Nathalal Haria Versus State Of Gujarat LL Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Guj) 20 In a notable legal development, the Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to Parag Nathalal Haria, who was implicated in an alleged Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud amounting to Rs. 67.72 crores. Gauhati High Court Two Parallel Proceedings In Respect Of Same Period Not Permissible As Per CGST/SGST Act: Gauhati High Court Case Title: Sri Subhash Agarwalla Versus State Of Assam And 4 Ors. The Gauhati High Court has held that two parallel proceedings in respect of the same period are not permissible as per the CGST/SGST Act. 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 Case Title: Mr. Sitaram Jaggnath Prasad Sihotia Versus Commissioner (Appeals),...

Indirect Tax Cases Weekly Round-Up: 25 February To 3 March 2024

Mariya Paliwala

Tags