Gujarat High Court held that recovery on the basis of such summary of the order, in absence of any detailed order, passed under any of the provisions of the GST Act is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Madras High Court held that since the petitioner has already deposited 75% of the disputed tax, petitioner may be grated one final opportunity of explaining the discrepancies between Form GSTR-01 and GSTR-3B.
The prayers are for writs of declaration to declare Explanation in Sl.No.7 of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 as ultra vires under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that confirming demand and initiating liability under section 74(5) of the CGST Act liable to be set aside since the same was already dropped vide proceedings under section 61(2) of the CGST Act.
ITAT Delhi held that delay of 35 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) ought to be condoned since assessee has explained the sufficient reason for said delay. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment order quashed since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served after the date of limitation. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, consequent orders is liable to be quashed.
The Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit of Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (‘Flextronics SEZ unit’) imported the goods, described by the petitioner as stand-alone parts/components, into India from Huawei, China.
Delhi High Court held that dismissed the petition as adequate efficacious alternative remedy is available by way of filing an appeal under section 16 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and Imposition of Tax) Act.
Held that the capital subsidy should be reduced for computation of book profit. Particularly in view of the excruciating fact that reduction of subsidy from written down value was accepted by the Assessing Officer and he did not tinker with the amount of depreciation claimed.
In these shipping bills, the Petitioner, the Petitioner’s Customs brokers inadvertently declared the Petitioner did not intend to claim the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (“MEIS”) benefit by indicating the letter “N” instead of “Y” in the relevant digital REWARD column.
