Stay updated
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case M/s Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. v. the Commissioner of State Tax, Chennai [W.P. No. 30494 of 2023 dated October 20, 2023] allowed the writ petition and held that, the granting…
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Veeram Natural Products v. The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise [W.P.(MD) Nos. 6485 to 6492 of 2023 dated September 13, 2023] held that aluminium foil container should be classified under Chapter…
The Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of M/s. Tvl. Diamond Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin [W.P. (MD) 6874 of 2023 dated August 29, 2023] allowed the writ petition and held that an assessment…
The Hon’ble Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the penalty could not be imposed on wrongly availed ITC as there is no change in tax liability of the Assessee when Transitional Credit has been debited for discharging tax liability and wrongly availed Input Tax Credit has been reversed.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court quashed the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and held that the credit that was validly availed cannot be denied, even if there were mistakes in the TRAN-1 returns filed twice.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Tvl. Raja Stores v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), held that, that Section 65 of the CGST Act applies only to registered businesses and concluded that authorities cannot conduct audits for businesses that have closed and further clarified that there is no barring in initiating proceeding under Section 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Karmaxx Infotech v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) dismissed the writ filed by the assessee against the order of cancellation of GST registration and held writ remedy cannot be granted to assessee who defaulted in compliance with provisions of GST law and has not cooperated in departmental proceedings.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s. Vadivel Pyro Works v. The State Tax Officer set aside demand raised by the Revenue Department on the ground that rectification order under section 161 of the CGST Act was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Seoyon E-Hwa Summit Automotive India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (ST)-I held that rejection of rectification application filed under section 161 of the CGST Act, 2017 is justified as the assessee has not cooperated with the Assessing Officer during the assessment.
The Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of M/s. SHIDO Pharma held that opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice, hence set aside the impugned order and directed the Revenue Department to conduct proceeding afresh.