M/s Kedia Enterprises vs State of Bihar & Ors.
The petitioner challenged a penalty order passed under Section 129 on the ground that it was issued beyond the statutory period of seven days from service of notice. The factual background showed that although notice was served in time, the final order was passed beyond the permissible period.
The Court held that Section 129(3) prescribes a mandatory time limit and any order passed beyond such period is void. The impugned penalty order was set aside.
Case laws referred:
Pawan Carrying Corporation v. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, C.W.J.C. No. 7985 of 2024 (Pat.)
Other Case Law
M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another
Interpretation of Section 6(2) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017 – Whether Issuance of Summons Constitutes “Initiation of Proceedings”
The petitioner, M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd., engaged in providing security ...
Read MoreM/s ARS Steels and Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. vs State Tax Officer & Anr.
Denial of ITC on sales promotional items
The petitioner challenged denial of input tax credit on gold coins and T-shirts ...
Read MoreUnion of India & Another v. M/s Mohit Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
Validity of IGST Levy on Ocean Freight under Reverse Charge Mechanism in CIF Import Contracts
The Union of India filed appeals challenging the judgment of the Gujarat High Co...
Read More