Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the petitioner approached the Court raising hue and cry about the violation of the principle of natural justice with an oblique motive to create a defence at the appellate stage, immediately after the culmination of the proceedings before the Consumer Forum.
“Though the Constitutional Courts are the sentinels of justice, however, this power of judicial review is required to be exercised with due care and caution and interference at the stage of investigation is made in rare and exceptional cases.”
Allahabad High Court directed the authorities to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.
The Court held that the proceedings initiated in terms of the impugned SCNs and their continuance would be futile and impractical. The impugned SCNs are essentially rendered impotent and would serve no practical purpose.
by Nilanjan Sen*, Sumeir Ahuja**, Shubhamay Dutta*** and Agrani Bhati****
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Or. 7 R. 11—Rejection of plaint — Appeal against Trial Court’s decision allowing application for rejection
(2023) 2 HCC (Bom) GST—Offences and Penalties—Arrest and Detention—Input tax credit—Issue of fake invoices in favour of non-existing entities and passing on
Have a quick look at what the High Courts across the country adjudicated on through this week.
by Shivam Mehta†, Tanya Garg †† and Srijita Chakraborty†††
The foundation of show cause notice itself was bad in law and the assumption that return could not have been filed in the GST portal of Telangana did not flow from Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
(2023) 1 HCC (All) GST — Search and Seizure — Determination of Tax — Challenge against the order wherein tax of Rs
Priorities for Viksit Bharat, revised tax structure, exemption of three cancer drugs from custom duty, abolishment of angel tax, simplification of capital gains taxation and more
“The conclusion that the taxable person is providing a service to the supplier while taking the benefit of a discount by facilitating an increase in the volume of sales of such supplier, is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the fundamental tenets of GST law. Therefore, this conclusion warrants interference, and this issue requires re consideration.”
by Brijesh Kothary* and Chitrartha Gupta**
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.