-
Unless an assessee actually files a return and debits the respective registers, the authorities cannot be expected to assume that available credits will be set-off against tax liability, thus upheld demand.
India Yamaha Motor Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6651 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Timelines prescribed under Rule 120A for revision of Form GST TRAN-1 must be of a period over and above the timelines stipulated in Rule 117 for submitting a declaration in Form GST TRAN-1.
Interplex Electronics India Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner of State
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6599 (HC-MADRAS)
-
As the TRAN-1 filed by the assessee, is admittedly incorrect in law, it does not hold any force, and the question of availment of credit does not arise.
Tvl Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner & Anr
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6495 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal although filed belatedly for which rescue has already come from the Top Court in the suo motu writ petition.
Hotel Southern Comforts vs. State Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6489 (HC-MADRAS)
-
In case, the suppliers accepts the same information in GSTR-3B will have to get automatically auto populated on the output tax paid by the supplier on the supply to the recipient. Thus, the system is fool proof and leaves no scope for any confusion.
Progressive Stone Works vs. The Joint Commissioner & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6438 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability and has also made a few payments as per the statement, cannot lead to self- assessment or self-ascertainment.
ShriNandhiDhall Mills India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGST
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6340 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If the petitioner is eligible to claim the said ITC, it become certain that, the petitioner can very well claim that ITC from the concerned jurisdictional State GST Authority, where the petitioner Head Office is located.
Travancore Mats and Mattings Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6333 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Procedural infraction shall not come in the legitimate way of grant of refund under the IGST Act, 2017 r/w CGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder.
Abi Technologies vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6268 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Despite the assessee making a representation for release of goods on April 11, 2022 against a bank guarantee equal to penalty amount, no order has been passed by the Revenue and assessee is yet to prefer appeal u/s 107 of CGST Act.
Tvl.Asian Paints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6142 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The goods and vehicles in question detained by the STO shall be released on payment of 25% of the demand of the penalty in each case.
RKS Agencies vs. State Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6120 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There is a post facto inclusion of the address which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill.
Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6106 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Writ is allowed and authorities are directed to release the vehicle and the consignment to the Assessee.
Smart Roofing Pvt Ltd. vs. The State Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6102 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Revenue is directed to verify the documents including Form-W, after which the refund claim shall be disposed at the earliest and till such time, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.
Rainbow Stones Pvt Ltd. vs. Assistant commissioner
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6067 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The invocation of Section 79(1)(c) at the moment is pre-mature. Recovery under Section 79 of the Act has to be in accordance with Chapter XVIII of CGST Rules, 2017. Recovery under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act has to be in consonance with Rule 145 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
MNS Enterprises vs The Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 6042 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The reasons stated by the Revenue in these cases in passing the orders impugned to reject the claim made by the petitioners are not tenable or these reasons would not stand in the legal scrutiny.
Ganges International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. The Assistant Commr. of GST & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5978 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Absent issuance of DRC-01 notice u/s 74(1) of CGST Act, which is also mandatory to be issued before passing the order of assessment, the proceedings, which are culminated in order of assessment, is vitiated.
VRS Traders vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5972 (HC-MADRAS)
-
A notice should be issued in a particular format giving 15 days time to the applicant to respond in a particular format and only thereafter, order should be passed either to accept or reject the refund claim made by the applicant.
S.B. Homes vs. The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex and Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5947 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Once all technical problems are resolved, the practice of sending physical copy through registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment may be dispensed with.
Pushpam Reality & ors vs State Tax Officer & ors
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5940 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If any ITC has remained utilized, it shall not be utilised until it is scrutinized and approved by an appropriate or a competent officer of the Department.
Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center & Ors. vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner & Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5916 (HC-MADRAS)
-
For the period prior to February 28, 2021, the Petitioner need not pay any GST to Airport Director.
Flemingo Dutyfree Shop Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors.
(2022) TaxCorp(IDT) 5837 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.