held that Revenue Department cannot retain any amount that has been paid as tax as a result of any inadvertent error and error committed by assessee being accidental shall have opportunity to rectify it.
AAR held that the procurement and distribution of drugs, medicines and other surgical equipment by the assessee on behalf of the Government without any value addition, and without any profit or loss, without even the intent to do business, will amount to Supply
CESTAT held that mere non-payment of tax or non-discharge of liability does not suffice to alienate the responsibility of the ‘proper officer’ to offer convincing reasons for the belief that the ingredients for invoking extended period are evident.
HC set aside the order passed by 7 Revenue Department cancelling GST Registrations of assessee on the grounds of suspicion. Held that, the transaction cannot be suspected merely on the grounds that the GST Registration of the other-end dealer was cancelled with retrospective effect.
HC set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner denying the interest to the assessee for delayed refund and granted relief under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum for committing delay in issuing service tax refund order.
HC Held that, no GST registration could be suspended or cancelled on basis of Head Office directions without assigning any reason.
HC Held that, rejection of appeal merely because of delay of one day is such a hyper technical and pedantic view of the matter to hold that even the delay of one day would be fatal to the maintainability of the appeal.
HC set aside order confirming excess claim of ITC) passed by Assistant Commissioner (ST) on the ground that the Petitioner was not granted fair opportunity of hearing.
HC held that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax being ex-parte and in violation of principle of natural justice is liable to be quashed. Further, the High Court remanded back the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to decide the case on merits and on the principles of natural justice.
ITAT held that expenses incurred for pre- operative nature cannot be set-off against the interest income. Held that, expenditure incurred by a company during the setting up of new business and its commencement can be allowed as deduction.
