The GST registration was cancelled due to non- filing of returns for a period of six months. Assessee argued that, due to health issues, assessee relied on his accountant to file returns, but later discovered they were not filed on time.
GST authorities could not invoke penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) without applying the corresponding penal provisions under the GST Act, 2017 especially when the allegations of issuing fake invoices to avail input tax credit ( ITC ) fraudulently fall under the scope of the GST Act.
Proper officer under Customs Act could detain the goods or stall the process of importation, without forming a requisite opinion in support of a suspicion that he had regarding the issue of Country-Of-Origin (COO) certificate or the origin of the imported articles.
Reclassification of AC remote components made by assessee was accepted as specific Chapter Notes and Section Notes were to be preferred over General Interpretative Rules while classifying product.
The action for reassessment which was commenced pursuant to the Section 148A(b) notice dated 27 May 2022 could not be countenanced and was liable to be quashed as there were no reasons underlying the formation of opinion that income had escaped assessment.
Notices issued to the respective banks attaching the accounts of the assessee maintained with them was valid as assessee did not file returns on time under Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, or submit complete returns for the assessment years, therefore, the deemed assessment passed under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act should be considered as the first assessment and the limitation for reopening the Assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 would apply only six years thereafter.
Clubbing of clearance values of proprietorship and Pvt Ltd Company for the purpose Excise Duty Assessment was remanded back to Tribunal on the basis of the principle as to whether the order assailed suffered from perversity or not.
Since upon the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), assessee had changed hands and commenced under a new ownership and management, the Bombay High Court held that tax proceedings pertain to period prior to the CIRP, and consequent to the approval of the resolution plan, the tax proceedings stood extinguished.
Tribunal upheld 20% addition instead of 25% on alleged bogus purchases due to unverified sellers agreeing that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and confirmed penalty proceedings.
Liability to capital gains had not arisen in the assessment year 2017-18 as occupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial portion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion but in the assessment year 2018-19 on receipt of possession.
