Bombay High Court held that the Goa Value Added Tax (12th Amendment) Act, 2020 is an impermissible judicial override defying the doctrine of separation of powers. Accordingly, respondents, based on the same, cannot deny any of the petitioners the benefits of earlier judicial decisions.
Chhattisgarh High Court directed works contractor involved in construction of road, bridges, tolls, etc. to make fresh claim showing difference of tax liability that was incurred at the time of submission of bids and excess tax paid in light of introduction of GST levying higher tax on works contract services.
CESTAT Chennai held the benefit of notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 allowable to tipper body as it is not necessary that the goods cleared into DTA have to be identical to the goods exported by the EOU.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessing income post completion of assessment u/s 143(3) without any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search is unsustainable. Accordingly, addition thereof is liable to be deleted.
Madras High Court allowed/ directed petitioner to furnish pending returns as due to health issue GST returns were not filed continuously for period of 3 months which resulted into cancellation of registration.
Madras High Court held that as the petitioner company is wound up, however, intention of petitioner for clearing the pending dues is sincere. Writ petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to pay pending dues in equal installments.
CESTAT Chennai held that service of unloading, transportation and stacking of coal from railway wagons to coal yard cannot be classified under the category of ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency’ service.
ITAT Jodhpur held that any issue which was considered by AO in the assessment order and such order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of justice, then, such order would be open for revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 80HHE of the Income Tax Act is allowed against the gross total income.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held liable for mis-declaration as Bill of Entry (BOE) was filed by the Customs Broker based on the documents given by the importer and there is no evidence brought on record to show that the Customs Broker was aware of the misdeclaration.
