-
Interest would be payable only on the cash component of the liability under section 50 of the CGST Act
Royal Chains Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4337 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The due dates for filing annual return and reconciliation statement for the financial year 2018-19 has been extended from October 31, 2020 to December 31, 2020.
Confederation of GST Professionals and Industries vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4335 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ENA typically contains 95% alcohol by volume and as such is not fit for human consumption and GST cannot be levied on the supply of alcoholic liquor for human consumption.
New Phaltan Sugar Works Distillery Division Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4334 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Revenu is directede to intimate the assessee about the quantum of interest payable on account of delayed payment of GST for the period under consideration in terms of the administrative instructions dated September 18, 2020 to be paid by the assessee, if not already paid.
KLT Automotive and Tubular Products Ltd. vs. UOI & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4333 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Levy of GST on a transaction ultimately resulting in sale/conveyance of land is unlawful and the Notifications fail to acknowledge the holistic nature of JDAs, since they seek to artificially separate and distinguish the transaction of transfer of development rights from the transaction of sale of land.
Nirman Estate Developers Private Limited vs. Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4305 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Let the petitioner serve the respondents afresh and file affidavit of service thereafter.
Karan Agencies vs. Goods & Services Tax Council & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4254 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,73,26,512 covered by the eight encashed bank guarantees with applicable statutory interest thereon to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
LM Wind Power Blades India Pvt Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4220 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Filing of a tax return is something which is not a one way affair. What happens in the filing of return is a positive act on the part of assessed and corresponding acceptance of such positive act by the revenue.
Vishnu Enterprises vs. The Joint Commissioner, CGST
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4162 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
This office is conscious of the procedure required to be followed by it to recover and will initiate the recovery proceeding with issuance of show cause notice, working of interest calculation and further actions as per provisions of law. There is no intention of this office to directly recover interest under section 50 of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017.There is no intention of this office to directly recover interest under Section 50.
Sahara Hospitality Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4105 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50
-
Though the officers under the CGST Act, cannot seek custody of the arrested persons for completing the investigation, Revenue’s contention that applicant’s detention in custody is necessary to prevent him from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering such evidence is well founded.
Ashok Kumar & Sheela vs. Commissioner, CGST
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 4103 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Appropriate authority shall give a hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a speaking order on the aforesaid application.
Sotheby’s Art Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3930 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Unconditional ad-interim stay is granted on recovery of interest u/s 50 of the GST Act.
Sahara Hospitality vs. State of Maharashtra
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3929 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The phrase technical difficulty envisaged in Rule 117(1A) is in relation to the common portal and the criteria for determining the error on the common portal is a system log on the common portal which does not support the case of the Petitioner.
Nelco Limited vs. UOI
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3792 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
If any permission was required to visit the office premises from the concerned police station, such permission shall be granted to the assessee and its staff with such conditions as it deems fit. No further extension of time would be granted to the assessee to furnish such information.
Saphire Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3729 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
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)
-
There are no proceedings under Section 62,63,64,67,73 and 74 against the Petitioner as mentioned u/s 83 of CGST Act which is necessary if attachment u/s 83 is to be levied.
Gehna Trading LLP vs. Union of India and Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3546 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Copy of Bombay HC order deferring the hearing of NAA petitions considering Revenue’s plea that a transfer application is pending in the Supreme Court. is now available on the portal.
Macrotech Developers Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.
(2020) TaxCorp(IDT) 3536 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
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)
-
The Petitioner has been compelled to file a writ since the alternate remedy of appeal to the Tribunal u/s 112(1) of the CGST Act cannot be availed, so as to challenge the order passed by the Revenue.
Rochem India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India & others
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3278 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Said legal position holds good notwithstanding the Savings Act, Petitioner further contends that insertion of an Explanation in garb of clarification, amounts to judicial encroachment in as much as it seeks to put-forth an alternative view to interpretation given by HC in Anshul Impex Pvt. Ltd.
United Projects vs. State of Maharashtra
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3206 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.