Velplex Industries vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence)
The petitioner challenged penalty orders passed under Section 74 read with Section 122 of the GST Act on the ground that they were issued before expiry of the adjournment period granted. The factual background showed that orders were passed prior to completion of the adjournment granted by the authority.
The Court held that passing orders before expiry of the granted time violates principles of natural justice. The impugned penalty orders were set aside.
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 MoreEthos Limited vs The Additional Commissioner, CGST Audit & Anr.
Predetermined show cause notice under Section 74 of CGST Act
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 contending...
Read MoreHyeoksoo Son, Authorized Representative for Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Moon June Seok & Anr.
Appeal against quashing of criminal proceedings relating to alleged misappropriation of company funds and fraud under Sections 406, 408, 409, 418, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
The appellant, Hyeoksoo Son, representing Daechang Seat Automotive Pvt. Ltd., ch...
Read More