Govt mandates electronic filing of appeals vide GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025
President or a Member of the Appellate Tribunal can recuse himself in certain cases.
GST
RVNL is liable to be taxed at concessional rate of 12% GST, and not 18% for railway work contracts: Madras HC
After applying the definition of Railway as defined under the Railways Act, 1989, to the contract between the petitioner and RVNL, it would constitute that the work specified under the contract is the original work pertaining to railway for the purpose of the subject notification and thus, covered under Serial No. 3(v)(a) of the notification dated 28-06-2017 issued by Central Government.
‘Audi alteram partem cannot be used to cure self-suffered wound’; P&H HC refuses relief to electricity firm that overcharged residents
The Court held that the petitioner approached the Court raising hue and cry about the violation of the principle of natural justice with an oblique motive to create a defence at the appellate stage, immediately after the culmination of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum.
Punjab & Haryana HC refuses to de-freeze Vuenow Infotech’s bank accounts in Cloud Particle Scam case
“Though the Constitutional Courts are the sentinels of justice, however, this power of judicial review is required to be exercised with due care and caution and interference at the stage of investigation is made in rare and exceptional cases.”
Penalty can’t be imposed on goods in transit with valid tax invoice and e-way bill, even after suspension of GST registration: Allahabad High Court
Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
Delhi High Court examines legitimacy of GST Show Cause Notices issued against Metal One Corporation, Sony India Limited and others
The Court held that the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs and their continuance would be futile and impractical. The impugned SCNs are essentially rendered impotent and would serve no practical purpose.
High Fuel Prices in India — Should Petroleum Products be Brought under the GST Regime?
by Nilanjan Sen*, Sumeir Ahuja**, Shubhamay Dutta*** and Agrani Bhati****
Cases Reported in HCC
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Or. 7 R. 11—Rejection of plaint — Appeal against Trial Court’s decision allowing application for rejection
Cases Reported in HCC
(2023) 2 HCC (Bom) GST—Offences and Penalties—Arrest and Detention—Input tax credit—Issue of fake invoices in favour of non-existing entities and passing on
HIGH COURT JULY 2024 WEEKLY ROUNDUP| Stories on Arijit Singh, M.K. Stalin, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, right to be forgotten, and more
Have a quick look at what the High Courts across the country adjudicated on through this week.
Taxability of ENA: Closing the Chapter or Opening a New Frontier?
by Shivam Mehta†, Tanya Garg †† and Srijita Chakraborty†††
Bank cannot be charged with demand, interest, penalty for filing return in another State’s GST portal due to technical glitch: Telangana High Court
The foundation of show cause notice itself was bad in law and the assumption that return could not have been filed in the GST portal of Telangana did not flow from Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Cases Reported in HCC
(2023) 1 HCC (All) GST — Search and Seizure — Determination of Tax — Challenge against the order wherein tax of Rs
Highlights of Budget 2024-2025: Focus on Employment & Skilling, MSMEs and Middle Class
Priorities for Viksit Bharat, revised tax structure, exemption of three cancer drugs from custom duty, abolishment of angel tax, simplification of capital gains taxation and more
Inside Madras High Court’s verdict on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes
“The conclusion that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier, is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law. Therefore, this conclusion warrants interference, and this issue requires re consideration.”
