Supreme CourtCustoms Act | Importer's Subsequent Import Bill Be Discarded If Undervalued To Previously Imported Identical Or Similar Goods: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/s Global Technologies and Research versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import)Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 239Recently, the Supreme Court held that under the Customs Act, the Importer's Bill of Entry of...
Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s Global Technologies and Research versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 239
Recently, the Supreme Court held that under the Customs Act, the Importer's Bill of Entry of subsequent imported goods can be discarded if the subsequent imported goods are undervalued to the previously imported identical or similar goods.
Case Title: M/s Bisco Limited V Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 257
The Supreme Court has held that Section 71 of the Customs Act, 1962 would be inapplicable to cases where imported goods were stocked outside the notified public bonded warehouse with the permission of the concerned officer.
Customs Act | Claimant Entitled To Interest On Delayed Return Of The 'Duty Drawback' : Supreme Court
Case Title: Union Of India And Ors. Versus M/S. B. T. Patil And Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 90
The Supreme Court observed that if there is a delay in refund of the 'duty drawback' to the claimant under the Customs Act, 1962, then the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback at the rate of interest which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time.
Case Title: M/s. K.P. Mozika v Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 26
The Supreme Court has held that the hiring of motor vehicles/cranes from a contractor is a service and would not attract Sales Tax or Value Added Tax (VAT) assuming the transaction to be the sale of goods. The Court clarified that the transfer of the right to use the goods not only includes possession but also control over goods by the user. If the control over the goods remains with the contractor during the hire period, then it cannot be termed as sale of goods and only service tax can be levied.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P. v. M/s Mishra Tea Blending And Packing Industries, UP [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5677-5678/2011]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1076
Recently, the Supreme Court has held that the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(e)(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 does not include blending and packaging tea.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. M/s Vivo Mobile India Private Ltd. & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of the Allahabad High Court quashing the demand of Rs. 235.52 Crores raised against Vivo Mobile India Private Limited raised by GST Authorities vide order under Section 74(9) of the Goods and Service Tax Act 2017.
Supreme Court Expunges Gujarat HC's Adverse Observation Against GST Officials
Case Title: The State Of Gujarat & Anr. V. Paresh Nathalal Chauhan
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 295
The Supreme Court (on March 12) expunged the observations made by the Gujarat High Court in an interim order that statutory protection of the good faith clause under Section 157 of the Goods and Services Tax Act may not be available to the GST officers who conducted a search operation in the instant case.
Case Title: Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 336/2018 (and connected matters)
While hearing a batch of petitions challenging penal provisions of GST Act, Customs Act, etc. as non-compatible with the CrPC and the Constitution, the Supreme Court on Thursday (May 2) expressed concerns about the ambiguity in Section 69 of the GST Act (dealing with power with arrest) and conveyed that it would interpret the law to "strengthen" liberty, if need be, but not allow citizens to be harassed.
Case Details: Commissioner Of Central Excise Belapur Vs Jindal Drugs Ltd.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 374
The Supreme Court has held that labelling or re-labelling of containers amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act for availing cenvat credit.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay 6% Interest For Delayed IGST Refund
Case Title: Raghav Ventures Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods & Services Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 281
The Delhi High Court has directed the GST department to pay 6% interest on delayed IGST refund.
Failure To Consider Reply On Merits; Delhi High Court Quashes GST Demand Against Max Healthcare
Case Title: Max Healthcare Institute Limited Versus UOI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 283
The Delhi High Court has quashed the GST demand of Rs. 8.23 crore against Max Healthcare.
Case Title: Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 306
The Delhi High Court has held that the charges of clandestine removal and under valuation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The absence of direct, credible evidence linking the respondents to the alleged offences necessitate the dismissal of the charges.
Case Title: G & S International Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 332
The Delhi High Court has held that the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, gives discretion to the Tribunal in cases of undue hardships to dispense the obligation to deposit the duty, interest, or penalty.
Case Title: Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 384
The Delhi High Court has held that the petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, is precluded from filing the fresh petition seeking the same relief that was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner.
Case Title: Naman Gupta Versus Commissioner Of Customs Airport And General
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 133
The Delhi High Court has held that as a customs broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable after the issuance of 'Let Export Orders' and the export of the goods out of the country.
Case Title: M/S Bharti Enterprises Versus Commissioner, Value Added Tax, Department Of Trade And Taxes & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 161
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to consider refunding the input tax credit (ITC) in light of the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) extending the benefit of the exclusion period.
Case Title: Anand International And Ors. Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 168
The Delhi High Court has held that the period spent in the disposal of the appeal before the CESTAT, i.e., between the filing and the final order being passed, shall not be counted towards the period stipulated under Section 28 (9) of the Customs Act.
Case Title: Apshara Garments Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 224
The Delhi High Court has quashed the show cause notice, which was lacking reasons for retrospective cancellation of GST registration.
Case Title: Amway India Enterprises Private Limited Versus Commissioner, Vat, Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 35
The Delhi High Court has held that coconut oil sold by Amway as a hair oil cannot be classified as edible oil under the DVAT Act.
Case Title: M/S Een Een Sales Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 52
The Delhi High Court has held that taxpayers are not provided an opportunity to object to the retrospective cancellation of GST registration.
GST Registration Can't be Cancelled Retrospectively For Non-Filing Of Returns: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar Versus Sales Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 87
The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect for mere non-filing of returns.
Case Title: Oguljeren Hajyyeva Versus Commissioner Of Customs
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 61
The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs Commissioner to release the remaining amount after realising the redemption fine and penalty from the seized foreign currency.
Case Title: RS Wires Industries Versus Sales Tax Officer Class
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 18
The Delhi High Court has quashed the order cancelling GST registration with retrospective effect, bereft of reasons.
Case Title: M/S Mittal Footcare Versus The Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 21
The Delhi High Court has held that an input tax credit (ITC) refund cannot be rejected merely on the grounds of the non-supply of authenticated documents.
Case Title: Good Life Zip India Versus Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 389
The Delhi High Court has held that simply because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer's registration is required to be cancelled with a retrospective date.
Case Title: Blackberry India Pvt Ltd -Earlier Known As Research In Motion India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner CGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 416
The Delhi High Court has held that the department cannot, after being unsuccessful before this Court on its own, declare the refund of the CENVAT credit as well as interest on delayed payments to be an erroneous refund.
Proper Officer Has To Consider Reply On Merits And Then Form An Opinion: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Canara Bank Versus Assistant Commissioner, DGST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 419
The Delhi High Court has held that the proper officer has to consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion.
Case Title: Pace Setters Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India And Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 447
The Delhi High Court has held that the rationale to deny input tax credit (ITC) to service providers who are not liable to pay tax on output services is obvious.
Case Title: M/S Jain Cement Udyog (Through Proprietor Sh. Sanjay Jain) Versus CBIC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 472
The Delhi High Court has held that GST registration cancellation passed solely for non-filing of reply is unsustainable.
Case Title: M/S Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 505
The Delhi High Court has upheld the disqualification as the CA Certificate did not match details on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) portal as per the Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN).
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Singh Versus Commissioner Of Delhi GST
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 507
The Delhi High Court has held that one of the consequences of cancelling a taxpayer's registration with retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's customers are denied the input tax credit availed in respect of the supplies made by the taxpayer.
Case Title: Sun & Sand Industries Africa Pvt. Ltd Versus Sales Tax Officer Class-Ii/Avato Department Of Trade And Taxes
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 515
The Delhi High Court has held that, as per Section 75(5) of the GST Act, if sufficient cause is shown, the proper officer shall adjourn the hearing; however, not more than three adjournments may be granted.
Life Of Provisional Attachment Order Is Only One Year: Delhi High Court
Case Title: M/S Krish Overseas Versus Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 526
The Delhi High Court has held that the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year.
Delhi High Court Quashes MOOWR Instructions Denying Benefit To Solar Power Generation Units
Case Title: Acme Heergarh Powertech Private Limited Versus CBIC
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 574
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory scheme underlying the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR) cannot be construed as seeking to exclude solar power generation in terms of permissions granted under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Case Title: VI Exports India Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 578
The Delhi High Court while dismissing the rice exporter's appeal, upheld the decision of the single bench holding that the exporter cannot be permitted to export 11,000 MT of banned non- basmati white rice, due to the non-fulfilment of the conditions entitling it to an exemption from the ban on export imposed by Notification bearing no. 20/2023 dated 20th July, 2023 issued by the Department of Commerce, Government of India.
Condition Of Pre-Deposit Duly Complied, Delhi High Court Restores Appeal On Board Of CESTAT
Case Title: Ankit Madan Versus Registrar, Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 579
The Delhi High Court has held that the appeal itself may be restored on the Board of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), bearing in mind the undisputed position that the condition of pre-deposit has been duly complied with.
Show Cause Notice Not Adjudicated For Nearly 14 Years; Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Dept.
Case Title: M/S Durga Trading Company And Ors Versus The Additional Director General (Adjudication) And Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 583
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, has issued the notice to the department in a petition assailing the jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, which has not been adjudicated for nearly 14 years.
Unexplained Expenditure Addition Merely Based On CBIC Instruction Not Sustainable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 592
The Delhi High Court has deleted the addition for unexplained expenditure, which was based on the instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Monetary Limit Of Rs. 1 Crore For Appeals To High Court; Delhi High Court Dismisses Dept's Appeal
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner Of Customs, ACC Imports New Delhi Versus M/S. Salasar Synthetics
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 593
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the challenging redemption fine of Rs. 40 lakhs, citing instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which set the monetary limit of Rs. 1 crore for appeals to the high court.
Unexplained Expenditure Addition Merely Based On CBIC Instruction Not Sustainable: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 599
The Delhi High Court has deleted the addition for unexplained expenditure, which was based on the instruction issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC).
Additions U/s 69C Based Merely On CBIC Information Can't Be Sustained: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Bausch And Lomb India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 617
The Delhi High Court sets aside the assessment order and remits the matter to AO on the ground that the additions of Rs.70.10 Cr. made under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure based merely on information received from Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) is unsustainable.
Bombay High Court
Service Tax Not Liable To Be Paid On Ocean Freight/Sea Transportation Services: Bombay High Court
Case Title: M/s. Sanathan Textile Pvt Ltd. Versus Union of India
The Bombay High Court has held that service tax is not liable to be paid on ocean freight or sea transportation services.
Case Title: Purushottam Prabhakar Chavan Versus Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST)
The Bombay High Court has held that lender bank registration with the Central Registry of Securitisation and Security Interest of India (CERSAI) has first priority over Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (GST) (DCST) against proceeds of enforcement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Case Title: KEC International Ltd. Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment notices issued merely on the basis of information received from the Directorate General of GST.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs NS-V vs. DOC Brown Industries LLP
The Bombay High Court has held that categorising the body massager as an adult sex toy was purely the officer's imagination.
Case Title: Indian Overseas Bank verses Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that in a sale of a mortgaged asset, where the mortgage in favour of a secured creditor is registered prior in time with CERSAI, and the MVAT Authorities too have a charge, the proceeds of the enforcement of the mortgage would first go towards discharging the dues owed to the secured creditor.
Case Title: Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd Versus The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court has held that the action of the Maharashtra Government in levying stamp duty on delivery orders (DO) is within the legislative competence of the state.
Case Title: Adv. Pooja Patil Versus The Deputy Commissioner
The Bombay High Court has held that the service provided by an individual advocate, a partnership firm of advocates, by way of legal services is exempt from levy of service tax.
Case Title: M/s. SCK International Versus Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-V)
The Bombay High Court has held that the petitioner ought not to have been meted out such discriminatory treatment as denying clearance. The harsh and unreasonable conditions cannot be imposed, and more so when there is not an iota of material on the part of the department, as placed before the Court, indicating as to why a different yardstick would be required to be applied to the present consignments when earlier seven consignments were released at 16% to 28% bank guarantee.
Case Title: Shri Yogesh Rajendra Mehra Versus Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Raigad (appeal)
The Bombay High Court has held that any deficiency in filing the appeal or application, like failure to file physical documents, cannot cause the appeal, which was registered on the online portal within the prescribed period of limitation, to be labelled and/or held to be barred by limitation.
Goa Cess Act Is Not Subsumed By GST Laws: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Sesa Sterlite Limited through Company Secretary Chandrashekhar D. Chitnis & Anr. Versus State of Goa through Chief Secretary
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that the Goa Cess Act is not subsumed by the GST laws.
Case Title: M/s. Agarwal Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assist. Commissioner of State Tax
The Bombay High Court has quashed the show cause notice (SCN) demanding GST on ocean freight on transportation of goods from outside India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 305
Case Title: ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. Versus UOI
The Bombay High Court, while quashing the show cause notices against ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., held that non-communication of show cause notices transferred to the call book is fatal.
Slump Sale Doesn't Amount To Sale Of Goods Within MVAT Act: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 306
Case Title: Piramal Enterprises Limited Versus The State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court has held that slump sale under the Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) would not amount to sale of goods within the purview of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act.
Case Title: Karvy Innotech Limited Versus State of Maharashtra
The Bombay High Court, while noting the discrepancies between the dates of creation and signing of the assessment order, quashed the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act (MVAT) Order, which was passed beyond the limitation period of 4 years.
Madras High Court
ITC Wrongfully Availed But No Fraud/Misstatement Proven; Madras High Court Imposes Token Penalty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 255
Case Title: M/s.Greenstar Fertilisers Limited Versus The Joint Commissioner (Appeals)
The Madras High Court has imposed a token penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee instead of a higher penalty as the assessee wrongfully availed of the input tax credit (ITC), but the department could not prove fraud or misstatement on the part of the assessee.
Case Title: Tvl. Shivam Steels Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
The Madras High Court has quashed the order imposing tax demands on post-sale discounts received by way of financial credit notes on the ground that receiving a discount is not tenable in law.
Electricity Qualifies As Input For Grant Of CENVAT Credit: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Madras High Court has held that electricity qualifies as an input for the grant of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR).
Case Title: Flow Link Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)
The Madras High Court, while remanding the matter, held that the refund claim has to be examined and determined based on documents pertaining to the availing of ITC.
Discount Linked To Subsidy Alone Can Form Part Of “Transaction Value”: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s.Supreme Paradise Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 61
The Madras High Court has held that a discount linked to the subsidy alone can form part of the “transaction value.”
Case Title: M/s.Thillai Agencies Versus State of Tamil Nadu
The Madras High Court has held that when a registered dealer claims any benefit under Section 19 of the TNVAT Act 2006, he has to strictly adhere to the conditions laid down in the said section.
Case Title: Tvl. Renault Nissan Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Joint Commissioner (ST) (FAC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 72
The Madras High Court has quashed the revision order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act (TNGST Act) against Renault Nissan for travelling beyond the scope of revision proceedings.
Case Title: M/s.Sri Sasthaa Constructions Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 100
The Madras High Court has directed the Assessing Officer to allow transitional credit of purchase tax paid under Section 140 of the TNGST Act, 2017, if the petitioner had paid “purchase tax” under Section 12(1) of the TNVAT Act.
Case Title: Tvl.Vardhan Infrastructure Versus The Special Secretary
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 136
The Madras High Court has held that in the absence of notification for cross-empowerment, action taken by counterparts was without jurisdiction.
Case Title: Auro Logistics Ltd Versus The Assistant Director (SRO)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 137
The Madras High Court has held that the inquiry will have to be continued by the adjudicating authority as per the notification in vogue and not by the adjudicating authority under the superseded notification.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 132
Case Title: Thai Mookambikaa Ladies Hostel v. Union of India
The Madras High Court has recently ruled that Hostel services providing welling to girl students and working women will be exempt from the GST regime as they are residential dwelling units for the girl students and working women.
Case Title: M/s.Tulip Nilgiris Exports Pvt. Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and Central Excise (Appeals)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw
The Madras High Court has held that an IGST refund claim may be made before the expiry of two years from the relevant date. The relevant date is required to be computed from the date of export of the goods concerned by any mode.
Case Title: Sri Guberan Steels Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 43
The Madras High Court has quashed the assessment order and held that the defect was not cured due to the availability of records in the custody of the central GST authority.
Case Title: M/s.Radha Industries Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Madras High Court has directed the verification of certificate of origin within 30 days and in case of failure of verification within time release the seized areca nut is subject to providing a bond for 100% of the value of goods but without insisting on a bank guarantee.
Case Title: M/s.V.R.Muthu & Bros. Versus State Tax Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 225
The Madras High Court has held that merely because the assessment is deemed to have been completed in both cases, it does not mean that the officers are precluded from exercising the power under Section 25 or Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006.
Rajasthan High court
Case Title: Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax Versus Jain Poles Industries
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that an appeal would lie to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; however, an appeal would not lie if the same pertains to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.
Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging GST Demand On Exhibition Services
Case Title: M/s. Savio Jewellery Versus Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax
The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition challenging the GST demand on exhibition services.
Crane Services To Transport Department Does Not Constitute Sale: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s Agarwal Carriers And Lifters
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has held that crane services to the transport department does not constitute sale.
Case Title: Rais Khan Versus Add. Commissioner
The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that issuance of summons is not initiation of proceedings referable to under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: M/s INOX Air Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax Division
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that credit availed on outward transportation services is eligible when the freight charges are included in the taxable value.
Case Title: State Bank of India Versus State of H. P. & Ors.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that departments of the state, including excise and revenue, will not have priority over the secured creditor s' debt.
Patna High Court
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Lt vs The State of Bihar and Ors
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 14
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court slapped a fine of Rs 5,000 on a Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) officer for forcible and illegal recovery of the full tax amount from a man waiting to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before GST tribunal which has not been made functional in Bihar.
Case Title: M/s Flipkart Internet Pvt vs The State of Bihar and Ors
The Patna High Court has recently ruled that pre-deposit for maintaining an appeal under Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST/SGST Act is permissible solely by utilizing amounts from the Electronic Cash Ledger and not the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Firos C.A. Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 39 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, empowers the taxing authorities to recover the tax dues from the directors of the private company if the company fails to make payment of the tax.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
Case Title: R. Krishnaprasad Versus Commissioner of Customs
The Kerala High Court directed that the referral laboratory, namely the Central Fertilizer Quality Control Unit, Faridabad, shall ensure that the analysis of the urea sample is done expeditiously and that the report thereof reaches the Kochi Customs Authority within a month from the date of receipt of the sample at the said laboratory.
Kerala High Court Stays GST Recovery Proceedings Against Bar Council Of Kerala
Case title: Bar Council of Kerala v The Additional Commissioner
The Kerala High Court stayed the proceedings initiated by the Additional Commissioner, Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs for recovery of service tax, penalty and interest from the Bar Council of Kerala.
Malabar 'Parota' Is Akin To 'Bread', Exigible To 5% GST: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Modern Food Enterprises Private Limited Versus Union Of India
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 269
The Kerala High Court has held that Malabar 'Parota' is akin to 'bread' and is exigible at the rate of 5% GST and not 18% GST.