The second allegation is that appellants have violated Regulation 5(n), by allowing unauthorised persons to enter into the area. Though, it is stated in the show-cause notice that the appellants have allowed unauthorised persons to access the premises, there is no evidence to support the same. The details of such unauthorised persons seen in the premises are not furnished by department. The allegation without support of any evidence cannot sustain.”
The Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi in DCIT v. Planman HR Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5152/Del/2017, dated July 15, 2021) disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue Department (Respondent) and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT Appeals), deleting the disallowance of INR 54,31,041/- being interest on late payment of service […]
There was no jurisdiction with the DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice in question and consequently, the whole penalty proceedings become ab initio void.
M/s. BAPL Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) HC directed to adjudicate matter before Tribunal as it involved adjudication on technical points w.r.t. business transactions In M/s BAPL Industries Limited v. Union of India [W.P. 27387/2011 and MP No. 1/2011 & 1/2013 decided on July 14, 2021], M/s BAPL Industries Limited (Petitioner), […]
Reversal of ITC under Section 17(5)(h) of CGST Act in case of loss of input which is inherent to manufacturing loss is misconceived, as such loss is not contemplated or covered by situations adumbrated under Section 17(5)(h) of the CGST Act.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court) SC holds that Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation even if the vehicle is under contact and under control of State Transport Corporation and the insurance policy has been purchased by its actual owner It is common knowledge that […]
The Hon’ble Tripura High Court in Shri Sentu Dey v. State of Tripura [Criminal Petition No. 14/2021 dated May 28, 2021] quashed the order passed for police investigation by the Judicial Magistrate in a matter of alleged GST offence. Held that, once the cognizance of offences alleged in the complaint has been taken by the […]
Naresh Kumar Goyal Vs National Faceless Assessment Center & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Naresh Kumar Goyal (Petitioner) challenged the show cause notice and the draft assessment order both dated April 19, 2021, penalty notice dated May 20, 2021 (Notices) and the assessment order dated May 20, 2021 (Impugned Order) passed by the Department. The Petitioner […]
GST : Where Charitable Trust was running a medical store, even though Charitable Trust was giving medicines to customers at a lower rate with no profit, sale of medicine by Trust would be a taxable supply of goods; aggregate turnover exceeding threshold limit, Trust would have to obtain registration
HC declined to interfere in a matter and dismissed the petition of the assessee seeking rectification of the Form GSTR-1 for the period of January 2018 to March 2018, on the ground that the statute has provided a period of limitation for seeking rectification and held that the Court cannot condone the limitation period provided for rectification of GSTR-1 Form
