High Court of Meghalaya
City Lights and Equipments v. State of Meghalaya
For revenue
WP(C) NO. 264 OF 2024
High Court of Meghalaya
WP(C) NO. 264 OF 2024
Where a firm challenged demand and assessment alleging bias and natural justice violation due to seizure-based assessment and involvement of same officer in inspection and appeal, with issues on proper officer jurisdiction, reliance on seized estimates, residuary rate, and reconciliation, statutory appellate remedy under GSTAT existed, no actual bias or illegality was shown, thus, writ petitioner was to be dismissed as disputed facts were fit for GSTAT consideration
Section 112, read with section 107, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Meghalaya Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Delhi High Court
Where DGGI issued composite show-cause notice to 146 noticees in proceedings relating to alleged IGST refund and ITC fraud, Notification No. 2/2017 as amended by Notification No. 2/2022 was held to validly confer pan-India jurisdiction on officers for DGGI SCNs and circular allocating competent adjudicating officer was held to merely regulate allocation without conferring jurisdiction, therefore jurisdictional challenge was to be rejected GST: Where composite SCN arising from DGGI investigation was assigned to common adjudicating authority based on highest amount of demand criterion, such criterion was held objective, quantifiable and uniformly applicable with rational nexus to single and consistent adjudication of one cause, and its application did not involve impermissible sub-delegation or enlargement of jurisdiction GST: Where Additional Commissioner, CGST, Delhi acting as common adjudicating authority passed order against Haryana-registered petitioners, appellate forum was held to lie before Commissioner (Appeals) of Commissionerate where common adjudicating authority was posted as already notified under Table III of Notification No. 2/2017 and clarificatory circular merely reiterated said position
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner’s statutory appeal delay was due to non-communication by CA not attributable to petitioner, and refusal to consider appeal on merits would cause serious prejudice, delay in filing was condoned and Appellate Authority was directed to hear appeal on merits
GSTAT Chandigarh
Where appellant, as Managing Director, faced personal penalty of Rs 25,000 each under section 122(3) for two company units and total amount determined against appellant did not exceed Rs 50,000, Tribunal exercised statutory discretion to refuse admission as threshold requirement was not met, resulting in dismissal of appeal