Goods & Services Tax
GST Case Laws

Search GST Case Laws

Keyword

Authority

Court

Section

Appeal No.

Date of Order

Date of Order

Judge

Favouring

Login/Subscribe to get access. Plan starts from Rs. 3500/-  Subscribe Now

Court: High Court of Bombay Date of Order: 2018-08-06

By the Deed of Trust dated 27th June, 2009, the settlor, inter-alia, declared and agreed that the Trustee Company shall manage the mutual fund in accordance with the applicable regulations. Further, as per para 6.1.1 of the Deed of Trust dated 27th June, 2009, the Trustee Company is allowed to float one or more schemes for the issue of units to be subscribed by the public.


Court: High Court of Bombay Date of Order: 2018-07-26

Mr. Sonpal, learned advocate submits that the prayers in the writ petition have become infructuous as subsequently the assessment order is passed and petitioner has filed an appeal against the said assessment order.


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-07-13

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 & State Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017, faced detention proceedings against its goods. Having invited Ext.P10 proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, the petitioner approached this Court assailing those proceedings.


Court: High Court of Kerala Date of Order: 2018-05-15

A consignment of marble, granite slabs and tiles that was being transported at the instance of the petitioner was detained by the respondent. Ext.P3 is the detention notice issued to the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the defect indicated in Ext.P3 notice is only a technical one, and therefore ought not to have been a reason for detaining the goods especially when it was not proved that there was any attempt at evasion of tax by the petitioner.


Court: GSTAT Mumbai Date of Order: 2018-09-28

The contention of the appellant, as found from the appeal memo, is that it failed to obtain temporary code from the Jurisdictional Central Tax & Excise authorities at Goa to deposit the appeal fee that attributed to the cause of delay. During the course of hearing of the Condonation of Delay application, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that they raised the bank draft in a wrong name that contributed to the cause of delay.


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-25 Present

Order disposes off an application praying for  rectification of mistake for Final Order dated 11.01.2018. It is  submitted that the appellant is manufacturing certain tablets,  capsules, syrups, ointments, etc and is availing area based  exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003.  For the purpose, two conditions have to be fulfilled. First, the  unit has to be established in the geographical area mentioned in the Notification. Secondly, the unit has to manufacture  those excisable goods which are not prohibited in the  Notification that too under declaration to the Department. In  the present case, the first clearance of goods was made by the  appellant on 30.12.2009 in terms of the said Notification.  However, due to inadvertence, the applicant did not file the  declaration with the respondent Department. But, he  voluntarily filed the declaration on 30.05.2013 alongwith the  returns declaring the date of exercising option as 21.11.2009,  i.e. the date when applicant unit commenced commercial  production as a new unit. 


Court: GSTAT Delhi Date of Order: 2018-09-25

The appellant has filed the present appeal for condonation of 23 days delay. The appellant is absent on call. Heard the ld. AR for Revenue and perused the record. In the condonation application, it is stated that the appellant had received the impugned order on 5th April, 2018 and accordingly the due date was on or about 4th July 2018 wherein the appeal is filed on 27th July 2018.


Court: GSTAT Chennai   Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the appeal ought to have been filed on 30.11.2017; that the appeal papers were handed over to appellant’s authorized Chartered Accountant which were misplaced in the office of the C.A; the appellants have good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel Shri M.N.Bharathi submits that the delay was due to illness of appellant; the appellant has good case on merits to succeed. The delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. The appellant being a small business entity, if delay is not condoned, he would be put to irreparable financial hardship.


Court: GSTAT Chennai Date of Order: 2018-09-24

Ld. Counsel submits that appellant’s headquarters is in Mumbai and the relevant personnel in charge of taxation is also based in Mumbai. While the notices and correspondences thereto were served on the appellant in Chennai, the same were in turn forwarded to their personnel in charge of service tax matters in Mumbai office. However, on 14.02.2018, Shri Deepak Gogavkar, the Asst. Vice President (Tax) of appellant company who was handling activities of Chennai region, resigned and left the organization. However, inadvertently, at the time of relieving of Mr. Deepak Gogavkar the fact of the present appeal pending for filing before CESTAT was not noticed, which could be discovered only at their annual fiscal audit. Thus there was inadvertent and unintended delay of 60 days in filing of the subject appeal. Ld. counsel submits they have also filed Appeal ST/40923/2017-DB on the similar issue for the earlier period. Therefore, the appellant undoubtedly had intended and at all times to prefer an appeal against the impugned order. The appellant has paid Rs.15 crores which is in much excess of pre-deposit of 7.5% at the time of investigation, hence there has been no monetary benefit to the appellant due to this delay. As the amount involved is substantial, if the delay is not condoned it will result in a grave and immeasurable financial loss. She prays for condonation of delay. She relies on following case laws : 1) Athletics Federation of India Vs CC (ACC & Import) Mumbai 2010 (254) ELT 310 (Tri.-Mumbai) 2) Ram Nath Sao Vs Gobardhan Sao 2002 (3) SCC 195 3) Sri Vasavi Agencies Vs CCE Vishakapatnam 2008 (227) ELT 185 (A.P.)