Since in matters of interception, seizure and detention, the GST Department did not recognise the concept of ‘working day’ and ‘holiday’, therefore, the order of detention was necessarily to be issued prior to the 7th day from date of detention/seizure of the conveyance/consignment in question, to validate both the interception and the SCN.
Total amount of duty in clause (d) of section 123 of the 2019 Act, for SVLDRS, could only mean the total amount of outstanding duty payable by a declarant making voluntary disclosure, as it could never have been intended by the legislature that the revenue would collect and/or recover tax liability which had already been discharged by the declarant.
Assessee as an EOU was entitled to claim deemed export drawback on raw materials/inputs which remained unutilized with the then-existing DTA unit at the time of its conversion into a 100% EOU.
Where the Central Government formed a prima facie opinion that the final findings of the designated authority recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty were not required to be accepted then tentative reasons had to be recorded and conveyed to the domestic industry so as to give an opportunity to the domestic industry to submit a representation by following the principles of natural justice.
An audit objection did not satisfy the requirement of AO having an independent ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment, that too after the elapse of nearly six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings were vitiated.
Imported WAP was entitled to an exemption from the whole of the customs duties under the ITA as it worked on technology and did not support the LTE standard.
Think and Learn Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Bangalore) Conclusion: An assessment order passed by an Assessing Officer, deciding on an issue pending before the AAR, in contravention of the mandate laid down in Section 245R(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not make the entire assessment order void. Held: PCIT, under section 263 […]
The Resolution Plan of the Successful Resolution Applicant could not be approved as it had breached the waterfall mechanism of payments as given under Section 53 of IBC and selectively favoured certain creditors without according any reason for the same and the Plan ineffectively dealt with the interests of all stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor and was non-compliant of Section 30(2)(e) and Section 30(2)(f) of IBC.
Since remanding of a resolution plan back to Committee of Creditors (COC) on the grounds of the procedural deviations raised by a dissenting minority in class of creditors, would render the CIRP a never ending process and was against the time bound resolution objective of the IBC.
NCLAT held that time period of 7 days for removal of defects is directory and refiling after removal of defects not amounts to a fresh filing.
