Stay updated
By Parveen Mahajan
The plea of the recipient that they had received actually inward supplies and the registration of the supplier was subsequently cancelled.
The department proved that the inward supplies were from non-existent firms, constituting fraud against the department and public exchequer.
The HC found no illegally in the orders passed.
Writ Tax No.128 of 2024
Date of Order 14.05.24
Allahabad High Court
Share this content:
The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sona Enterprises held that recovery under Section 75(12) read with Section 79 of the CGST Act is permissible only where the registered person has clearly disclosed a tax liability in returns filed under Section 39 and such admitted liability remains unpaid, and that the said recovery mechanism cannot be invoked where the Revenue alleges wrong usage of input tax credit, which must be addressed only through adjudication under Sections 73 or 74.
The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Meghaariika Enterprises Private Limited & Anr. held that the impugned deficiency memo dated July 15, 2025 issued in FORM GST RFD-03 under Rule 90(3) rejecting the Petitioners’ refund application under Section 54 read with Rule 90 for interest paid under protest on GST wrongly demanded for assignment of GIDC leasehold rights deserves to be quashed.
Post Views: 426 The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Velayudhan Gold LLP v. State of Kerala…