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.
Genuine issue of Shares to Shareholders not to be considered under Anti-Abuse Provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 In Income Tax Officer v. Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan [I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 dated October 01, 2021] [along with cross objection filed by Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan (the Respondent)], the Income Tax Officer (the Appellant) filed an […]
HC observed that the Respondent has failed to show that the Petitioner as a purchasing dealer deliberately availed the ITC in respect of the transactions with an entity knowing that such an entity was not in existence and on the basis of this observation, the Court revoked the GST Registration Cancellation.
ndhra HC pronounced that, in the facts and circumstances of the given case, a successful tenderer would be required to supply medicines and other goods, which are not exempted under the GST Act, in the process of maintaining SNCUs, and for that reason, all bidders were required to submit GST registration certificates.
UOI contended that since the particular provision has already been challenged and the proceedings are pending across the Country, along with ramifications of huge amounts payable under the CGST Act are involved, it should be appropriate for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hear the matter.
Appellant contended that CBI Manual does not make it mandatory to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) before the registration of the FIR. It was stated that a PE cannot be made mandatory for all cases of corruption and is only conducted when the information received is not sufficient to register a regular case.
In re Vinayak Singh (GST AAR West Bengal) GST not payable on supply of services of lifting/ removing of garbage accumulated from vats, dumping yards, containers to Howrah Municipal Corporation The AAR, West Bengal in response to Application presented by Mr. Vinayak Singh (Applicant) [Order No. 14/WBAAR/2021-22 dated October 8, 2021]has issued an advance ruling […]
In re Continental Engineering Corporation (GST AAR Telangana) GST payable on amount received through Arbitration for work executed in pre-GST period Telangana Authority for Advance Ruling has held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be payable on the amount received through Arbitration for work executed in the pre-GST period. M/s. Continental Engineering Corporation (Applicant) […]
