HC held that assessee cannot approach High Court when first remedy is still available. Directed the assessee to approach the State Tax Authority who passed the detention order and seek to revoke it by answering all the allegations.
SC upheld order passed by Allahabad HC holding that due to advancement in technology, if there is a replacement of the old machinery with the new machinery for improvement in quality and quantity of a product, it results in expansion and/or modernization, but not in diversification, thus, the assessee will not be entitled to exemption on the payment of trade tax under the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948
Admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
SC held that assessee cannot be denied relief under SVLDR Scheme for not making payment of dues in prescribed time limit due to inability of making payment in moratorium period.
CESTAT held that, advertising in newspapers or media agencies, where role of assessee was merely that of an intermediary in sale of space/ time for media agency on commission basis, cannot lead to an inference that assessee had rendered services as advertising agency.
CESTAT held that once the buyer of a flat cancelled the booking and the consideration for service was returned, the service contract got terminated and once it is established the no service is provided, then refund of tax for such service becomes admissible.
HC held that notice is needed to be served to assessee under Rule 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) before physical inspection is carried out.
HC quashed and set aside demand notice and assessment order making an addition of INR 92.42 crores without providing the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Held that, the Revenue Department should make assessments following the provisions of Section 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 in order to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
CESTAT, Chennai, ruled that customs brokers cannot be held liable for the undervaluation of goods. The court held that the valuation of goods is determined by the contract between the exporter and importer, and customs brokers do not have any influence in this matter.
HC directed the investigating officer to issue advance notice of 72 hours to the assessee to effect the arrest if necessary, after investigation in a case. Further directed the assessee to co-operate in the matter and produce the materials as sought.
