ITAT held that, principles of estoppel do not apply to Income Tax proceedings and the Revenue Department must keep in mind that the correct income of assessee must be taxed in proper Assessment Year and within limitation prescribed by Income Tax Act, 1961
Choksi Exports Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) – IGST refund claim cannot be withheld when ITC towards purchase from risky supplier already been reversed
A SCN must clearly state the allegations that concerned noticee has to meet, being the essence of a SCN, any notice that does not qualify this criterion, cannot be considered as a SCN, which are not meant to be issued mechanically to comply with a formality, but to serve the principles of natural justice and to enable the concerned authority to take an informed decision.
LLP is to be treated as a firm under Income Tax Act, 1961 and a firm can be a partner in other partnership firms therefore, LLP is eligible to exemption under Section 10(2A) on share of profit received from other partnership firms.
AAR ruled that ‘Bouquets’ made with dry parts of plants, foliage, flower buds, grasses, and branches of plants which dried, bleached, dyed, and coloured and sold with plastic foil packaging will be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 06039000 or 06049900 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and would be exempted from GST
SC refused to interfere with order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein bail was denied to accused in alleged matter for availment of wrong ITC, on the ground that investigations were still going on for detecting more fake suppliers and investigations might be hampered if bail was granted.
HC quashed the Order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the refund application of the assessee, on the grounds that, no opportunity of personal hearing was provided, which is against the principles of natural justice. Further, directed the Revenue Department to pass an order after adhering to the principles of natural justice, considering on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks.
If the defects are similar in SCNs than Parallel proceedings cannot be initiated by Central/State GST Authorities on same subject matter
HC held that, procedural lapses cannot be a ground for denying substantive benefits to assessee. Further held that, Show Cause Notice issued before the passing of such order was barred by limitation.
HC held that, there is no malice or lack of jurisdiction of Revenue Department to initiate proceedings and passing the order for confiscation of gold and levy of penalty, as discrepancy in quantity mentioned in documents and quantity recovered was sufficient reason for Revenue Department to suspect GST evasion.
