HEC India LLP Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Audit-II (Madras High Court) GST Authority needs to communicate reasons for blocking ITC of the taxpayer Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the GST Authority necessarily needs to communicate reasons to the taxpayer if the taxpayer’s Input Tax Credit (ITC) is blocked. In the […]
Temporarily petitioner was not carrying his business from the premises in question from officially registered premises and they were carrying business in question from home.
Manoj Kumar Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court) Quashed summary revised GST demand cannot be made without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard Patna High Court has held that a demand made under GST laws on the basis of orders passed where the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to […]
Suresh Trading Corporation Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Circle) of SGST (Madras High Court) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated October 10, 2019 in which the GST certificate of the Petitioner was cancelled. However, it is to be noted that SCN which preceded the same was not been issued in the prescribed template […]
Respondent was not in a position to defend and justify the action of the Respondent of passing the impugned assessment order in disregard to the aforesaid circular of the CBDT and also the action of the Respondent concerned in passing the impugned assessment order without getting any instruction from the DRP within the time stipulated under the statute.
Benefit of Suo moto extension order passed by the SC for the Covid period cannot be taken by the Department In Gobindo Das & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. A No. 11578 of 2021 dated October 01, 2021], Gobindo Das (Petitioner) has filed the current writ petition challenging the Provisional Attachment order […]
The court is in pain to observe that instead of initiating an appropriate action against the delinquent firms in the matter, wherein as per the claim of Delhi Police, a tax evasion of Rs.940 crores is involved, the authorities are involved in the blame game. Unfortunately, none is present on behalf of SGST and even no reply has been filed on behalf of Chairperson, CBIC.
Appellant filed two different claims of refund for the identical issues of custom duty paid on pilfered goods imported at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi Port. The refund claims were initially rejected on the ground that goods were pilfered after the order of clearance by the Customs Officer and the said order was challenged.
The AO reopened the assessment of the Assessee after it was observed that the Assessee had not reflected or explained his investment in a hotel project during a survey operation. Thereafter, the Assessee filed an application before the CIT(A) challenging the validity of reopening of assessment, which was subsequently rejected and disposed of by the CIT(A) on the ground that the AO had correctly followed the procedure as contemplated in the IT Act and there was no infirmity in the action of the AO regarding reopening, all of which has been in accordance with law.
The ground for preventive detention is alleged to be that the Petitioner was controlling a syndicate which was involved in effecting fraudulent exports and imports in order to evade Customs duty and earn undue export benefits including Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds through 33 non-existent and/or dummy firms.
