The court ruled that submitting a reply in the form GST-DRC-06 is not mandatory under Section 73(9), 74(9), and 76(3) of the GST Act. Additionally, the court emphasized that a reply sent through postal means should also be considered valid.
The recent ruling by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of M/s. Great Heights Developers LLP v. Additional Commissioner Office of the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai [Writ Petition No. 1324 of 2024 dated February 01, 2024], marks a significant development in the realm of tax law.
In the case of Chukkath Krishnan Praveen vs. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has issued a directive instructing tax authorities to entertain rectification requests for errors in GSTR-3B filings.
The High Court has strongly criticized officials from the Income Tax Department for conducting raids on an advocate’s premises without a warrant. The officials seized both digital and physical files of a client and barred the advocate from court for three days.
more reasonable timeframe of 3 months for the assessee to make the payment. If the payment was not completed within this extended period, the revenue authority retained the right to initiate recovery proceedings.
The Patna High Court has clarified that the direct invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible when a taxpayer neglects to file a statutory appeal under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST).