Stay updated
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mahendra Singh held that an Advance Ruling (AAR) issued in the name of another distinct GSTIN holder cannot be mechanically applied to a different GST-registered person, and the adjudicating authority must independently examine the facts of the case instead of relying on non-binding precedent.
THE HON’BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Deepak Singhal V/s Union of India, decided on 11-9-2024
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s Study Metro Edu Consultant Pvt. Ltd. through its Authorised Signatory Abhishek Bajaj held that the imprint of the Investigating Authority under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act does not bind the adjudicating authority; services rendered to foreign universities should be adjudicated independently under the proper classification and place of supply rules, and the petitioner’s writ petition is dismissed.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Paper Trade Links v. Union of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance…
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Empire Steel Holdings held that the physical verification of business premises should be done in presence of person.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s Chirtantan Enterprises LLP v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise [Writ Petition No. 29788 of 2024 dated October 15, 2024] dismissed the writ petition relying on the landmark case of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services & Ors. v. M/s. Safari Retreats Private Limited & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2948 of 2023 dated October 03, 2024] wherein the Apex Court upheld the validity of Section 17(5)(c) and 17(5)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), rejecting the constitutional challenge. It clarified that “plant or machinery” in Section 17(5)(d) cannot be interpreted the same way as in the explanation to Section 17(5)(c) of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Deepak Singhal held that the GST Authorities are not permitted to bypass the procedure for launching prosecution under the GST Act, 2017 and invoke provisions of Indian Penal Code without pressing into service penal provisions from GST Act, 2017 and that too without obtaining sanction from commissioner under Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
the Honorable High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of RCC Infraventures Limited Vs. UOI or Ors. [W.P. 8253 of 2024] dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the Appellate Authority for redressal.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Raymond Ltd. v. Union of India allowed the writ petition and held that, the Reasonable time period for filing reply to the SCN is to be considered as 30 days.
The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Agrawal and Brothers v. Union of India, while allowing the claim, held that the taxpayer paid tax but his supplier inadvertently deposited the amount of GST in the wrong GSTIN. The Court further noted that it is a settled law that no one can’t be made to suffer for the fault of another.