Case Laws

Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam, does not qualify to be a "Local Authority"

Advance ruling application rejected as department proceedings were initiated before the filing of the application

Involuntary deposit made by the taxpayer during search is liable to be refunded along with statutory interest

Since cash is not considered goods but falls within the definition of "money", it cannot be seized under the provisions of the GST Act

Adjudication by the same officer who conducted the inspection violates principles of natural justice

Penalty proceedings under Section 129 cannot ensue from a godown search and seizure

Order invalid due to failure to consider taxpayer's reply

Date of initial filing of appeal through the online mode should be considered the official filing date if all required steps are completed

Order classifying Toilet Cleaner (Harpic, Lizol etc) under HSN '3402' set aside as the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered

Updating the e-waybill to reflect changes in the vehicle number suffices to avoid penalties for discrepancies in the consignment note