-
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)
-
Supply by Duty Free Shops (DFSs) to the outbound passenger constitutes exports, consequently, becomes a zero-rated supply in terms of section 16(1) of IGST Act, eligible for 100% ITC.
In the matter of Sandeep Patil vs. Union of India and Others
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3132 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Section 92 of the CGST Act clearly contemplates that GST may be levied on and collected from the Court Receiver with respect to a business under its control provided that the taxable event of ‘supply’ for such levy of GST has taken place. Therefore, the real issue to be determined in the facts of the present case is the effect of payment of royalty by the Defendant to the Court Receiver as a condition for remaining in possession of the Suit Premises.
Bai Mumbai Trust vs. Suchitra wd/o. Sadhu Koraga Shetty
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3082 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The scheme of Section 67, more particularly sub- section (5) thereof, suggests that as far as copies of the documents so seized, a person from whose custody such documents have been seized will have right to get the copies thereof. The idea is that businesses should not be subjected to needless harassment and a mere statement that it will prejudicially affect the investigation would be only chanting the language of the section.
In the matter of High Ground Enterprises Ltd.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3041 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Writ challenging non-disposal of application for amendment of registration in terms of Rule 9 of the CGST Rules is heard.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3040 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Notice in a writ challenging the vires of Rule 89 (5) of CGST Rules, 2017 giving the formula for computation of refund of ITC in case of ‘inverted duty structure’, explanation (a) of which excludes input service credit from definition of ‘Net ITC’ is issued.
Raymond UCO Denim Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 3005 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Given the drastic nature of this power, the Parliament has provided that such provisional attachment can only be done consequent to an order of the Commissioner which ensures due application of mind by a senior officer to the facts of the case.
Bhattad Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2973 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
There is no inconsistency between the provisions of section 78 of the State GST Savings Act and the Constitution as amended.
Magma Fincorp Limited vs. State of Maharashtra
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2971 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
The decision making process had not been complied with by the Authority as it was necessary for the Authority to consider the submissions made by the parties before it and give its findings in the context of the submissions made. Ignoring a submission would render the order vulnerable to judicial review by this Court.
C.M.S. Info Systems Ltd. v/s. The Commissioner, CGST, Mumbai East & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2884 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Different High Courts of the Country have taken divergent views in the matter and made observation that position in law should be clarified by the Apex Court.
Sapna Jain v. Union of India and Ors
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2880 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Online Fantasy Sports Gaming of Dream 11 are not gambling services, Dream 11 is not in error in paying GST under entry 998439 for its on-line gaming activities, by paying applicable GST @18%.
Gurdeep Singh Sachar vs. Union of India
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2877 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Lists Hardcastle Restaurant’s (operating restaurants under McDonald’s brand name) writ petition challenging the National Anti- Profiteering Authority (NAA) order, for hearing on August 16.
Hardcastle Restaurants Private Limited v/s. Union of India and Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2860 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Notice in writ petition challenging levy of IGST on import of goods under provisions of Section 3(7) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA) and Section 5 & 7(2) of IGST Act, 2017 is issued.
Sanathan Textile Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2835 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Since proceedings before the Appellate Authority partake a judicial or a quasi-judicial character was not seriously disputed at the bar, therefore requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice is in fact required to be read into, in the absence of any specific stipulations in the Statute to the contrary.
JSW Energy Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2816 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Writ challenging levy of IGST on ocean freight admitted.
Victory Ventures and Others vs. Union of India
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2803 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
HC - Parallel proceedings allowed under Excise and GST on same subject but in different States.
Shafi Khan Khokhar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(IDT) 2376 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.