| August 27, 2024 |
Proceedings u/s 129 leading penalty order not sustainable, where e-way bill incorrectly mentions ‘Place of Delivery’ due to a human error – Allahabad High Court |
| August 22, 2024 |
Original Refund application date to be considered for the purpose of determining the limitation period, and not the subsequent rectified application date: Gujarat High Court |
| August 20, 2024 |
Without a valid underlying order, any recovery action based on a summary order is legally unsustainable: Gujarat High Court |
| August 17, 2024 |
Rejection of refund claim on the ground of missing Bank Realization Certificates, not a valid ground: Delhi High Court |
| August 14, 2024 |
Rectification u/s 39(9) filed after statutory deadline permitted, if there is no loss to the revenue: Bombay High Court |
| August 13, 2024 |
Mandatory to provide 30-day period to respond to the notices highlighting discrepancies found during the scrutiny of returns – Section 61 |
| August 12, 2024 |
Department cannot take action against bonafide purchasing dealers, for the failure of a selling dealer |
| August 9, 2024 |
Blocking of ITC beyond period of one year deemed impermissible |
| August 7, 2024 |
Penalty under Section 129(5) unjustified due to the minor discrepancy in the PIN code |
| August 6, 2024 |
Proceedings should follow Sections 73 & 74, not Section 130, even if excess stock is found |
