Since there was failure on the part of revenue to collect any evidence in relation to either procurement of raw materials by the appellant or production of huge quantity of final goods alleged as removed clandestinely to sustain the charge of clandestine removal hence, the impugned demand was not sustainable for lack of evidences.
Gujarat High Court had recently, while deciding upon an application filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, granted bail to a GST accused for fraudulently availing input tax credit worth Rs 10.71 crores, in respect of fiction transactions amounting to Rs 59.55 cores as the department already had sufficient time to investigate their claim and to gather evidence, which they had alleged were in connection with fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit and alleged evasion.
IBC does not bar a related party of the Financial Creditor from submitting a resolution plan for the Corporate Debtor and also, an application based upon over future contingencies or apprehensions was unsustainable.
Where assessee did not raised claim for deduction under section 54B while filing the returns of income filed u/s 139(1) and u/s 148 but in appellate proceedings raised the same then such claim was allowable.
While issuing the Show-Cause notice, it was duty of Adjudicating Authority to take the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. Assessee could not be made to suffer on the gross delay on the part of the Respondent.
As appellant had not taken registration and had not filed ST-3 returns within the prescribed time, penalty imposed under Section 77 was justified.
Reassessment was bad in law beyond four years when the tax payer had disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment proceedings and the AO did not draw any adverse inference regarding the same.
There would be difference if a person was engaged in proving any service connected with the making or preparation of the advertisement and a case where a person merely complied with the instruction of the clients for printing the contents supplied by the client thus, the activity of printing of advertisement content on PVC materials amounted to “manufacture”, and therefore, service tax was not leviable.
Notice could be issued under section 148 in relation to search and seizure as assessee was one of the investor/partner along with the others to acquire the land for TDR generation which could not be disputed and was admitted in the post search statement by the director and the assessee was provided the benefit of cross examination of the director to test check the authenticity of the transactions.
Penalty was not leviable as assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses however assessees claim was accepted that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one.
