No notice GST DRC-01A was served upon the assessee hence he could not make a reply. Petitioner became aware only after when order was uploaded on the tab “view additional notices and orders”.
In the matter abovementioned writ petition, challenging the impugned order creating demand u/s 73 GST, after observing that reminder and order was uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ Tab instead of ‘Due Notices and orders’.
In a recent ruling Hon’ble Madras HC allowed writ petition by observing that petitioner that consolidated amount was related to invoice bills which are less than Rs. 1 Lakh and hence are exempted.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that PCIT is wrong in concluding that return filed u/s 44AD did not envisage the maintenance of any Books of Accounts. Section 68 can be invoked only if there is any entry in the Books of Accounts.
In the abovementioned case ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after considering the fact that no proper opportunity was availed by assessee before CIT (A) and revenue has no objection in remanding the matter.
In the matter abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after observing that no proper opportunity was given to assessee and assessee was able to substantiate the additions made by AO if opportunity may be granted.
It was argued on behalf of the revenue that tribunal was not justified in passing the order as it is an admitted fact that huge cash was deposited in the bank account of the assessee, which was totally contrary to the agreement hence provisions 69A were attracted.
It was argued on behalf of assessee that in the preceding AY, the margin of the assessee from the sale of recharge coupons was 1.75% (approx) and the same was accepted by the Department. Estimation of profit margin at 8% by AO is very much on higher side.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the minutes of meeting held on 08.11.2024, though which TRQ (Tariff Rate Quota) allotted to petitioners by the respondent for import of bullion. Petitioners are dealing in business of import of gold.
In the order above mentioned CESTAT allowed appeal of the assessee and held that that closure letter was already issued by the authority.
