Assessable person cannot be denied access to vital piece of evidence which can prove him innocent in the eyes of law by the department. Further, since this was not done, adverse inference must be necessarily drawn against the Respondent.
NFAC should follow and apply the decision of jurisdictional High Court having jurisdiction over Assessing Officer. Any relief should not be refused to assessee by NFAC merely because there was some conflicting decision of non-jurisdictional High Court.
HC set aside the order rejecting the claim of assessee that disentitled assessee from claiming MEIS Scheme benefits and held that, assessee will be entitled for such benefits and shipping bills reveal a clear intention of the assessee to avail benefit under MEIS Scheme and directs Revenue Department to grant consequential benefits within 8 weeks.
Cases involving confiscation/ redemption fine are within the ambit of Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS, 2019) The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in M/S Synpol Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 21744 of 2019 dated February 27, 2020] held that taxpayers whose case involves confiscation and redemption […]
Tripura High Court held that abatement of duty can’t be withheld solely on ground that Superintendent did not record that sealing was done in such a manner that machine could not be operated as it was not within the control of the Appellant in what manner the Superintendent passed an order after sealing the machine.
AAR held that, that mere acceptance of joint custody of goods without rights, privileges of ownership of goods does not amount to supply.
Divergent opinion on constitutional validity of Section 13(8)(b) IGST Act pertaining to intermediary services The Hon’ble Bombay HC in Dharmendra M. Jani v. Union of India [W.P. No. 2031 of 2018 dated June 09, 2021] Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that Section 13(8)(b) of the Integrated Goods and Service Act, 2017 (“IGST Act”) is ultra vires […]
CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the refund claims of the assessee on the ground that credit reversal in Form GSTR-3B pertains to GST credit and not CENVAT credit. Held that, procedural delay will not disentitle the assessee from claiming refund when credit had been reversed in Form GSTR-3B.
The AAR, Kerala, in Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. [Advance Ruling No. KER/97/2021 decided on June 07, 2021] held that the placement of specified medical instruments to unrelated customers like hospitals, labs etc., for their use without transfer of ownership and consideration, against an agreement containing minimum purchase obligation to purchase medical instruments for specified period, […]
Usage of word ‘may’ under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) could not absolve the Revenue (the Respondent) from the obligation cast upon it to consider the request made for grant of personal hearing. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Respondent without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee shall be set aside.
