Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the cost of Pre-delivery Inspection (PDI) and After Sale Service (ASS) charges required to be included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles sold by the appellant to the […]
Nitin Jatania Vs Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai (CESTAT Mumbai) Facts- The appellant alleged that the Additional Director General, DRI didn’t have the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice as he was not the proper officer under section 28 of the Customs Act to issue the notice. Conclusion– The Supreme Court observed that the […]
The order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee.
The appellant undertakes Oil Palm cultivation and manufacture and production of crude palm oil. A controversy arose between the assessee and the revenue, with the revenue implementing Rule 7 of the Central Income Tax Rules, 1962 providing for assessment of income which is partly agricultural and partly business income.
This court is of considered view that the present accused does not deserves to be released on bail. It is settled preposition of law that economic offences in itself are considered to be gravest offence against the society at large and hence are required to be treated differently in the matter of bail.
PCIT Vs Delhi International (Karnataka High Court) Facts- Assessment orders were passed u/s 143(3) read with 153A, in consequence to a search and seizure operation conducted at the premises of the assessee. The AO made certain additions and demanded tax thereon. The said assessment orders were challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals), the […]
Show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer. Accordingly, duty demand fails. The proposal for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty cannot be segregated from the duty demand and, therefore, if the duty demand fails as the show cause notice was not issued by the proper officer, the proceedings for confiscation and penalty cannot survive.
It is held that the petitioner assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor. Also held that the department is precluded from denying the benefit of the tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner.
Held that the retrospectivity of tax or its collection brought in by the Finance Act 16 of 2011 is not controlled by the validation clause in section 12 of that Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
The dispute in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass and relates to the rejection of the petitioners claims for budgetary support under a ‘Scheme of Budgetary Support under Goods and Service Tax’ regime on the ground that the claims were made for the period prior to the GST registration which is impermissible.
