CESTAT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of immediate suspension of Customs Broker License after more than four years of alleged act is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, order of continuation of immediate suspension is set aside.
ITAT Kolkata held that even after acceptance of fact that appellant is an entry provider, onus is on the appellant to prove that transaction was not of appellant but of somebody else’s. Accordingly, matter remanded for re-verification.
The Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition or disallowance on the issues as the Assessing Officer was not supposed to examine any other issue except the issue for which the scrutiny assessment was ordered.
Kerala High Court directed petitioner to approach Tribunal by filing an appeal u/s. 112 of the CGST/ SGST Act as and when the Tribunal is constituted. Petitioner also directed to pay fine in lieu of confiscation for release of seized gold ornaments.
ITAT Kolkata held that in course of reassessment, AO concludes that no additions or modifications are warranted under these heads, it would not be entitled to make any additions in respect of other items forming part of original return.
Delhi High Court held that revenue/ department is not entitled to adjust the refunds granted to the petitioner against demand of tax that is stayed. Accordingly, department is directed to refund the amount due to the petitioner.
During the scrutiny of the petitioner’s monthly return, it was found that there was a short payment of taxes due to excess claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A/GSTR-2B.
Madras High Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for examination of disputed questions of facts since entire basis of assessment order is on the basis of erroneous/ non-existent facts.
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Delhi High Court held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period as stipulated under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is not permissible. Accordingly, notice issued beyond time limit set aside.
