The Karnataka High Court dismisses an appeal involving Manipal Finance Corporation Limited due to monetary limitations, based on Circular No.17 of 2019 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
Read Circular No. 193/05/2023-GST from CBIC regarding the clarification on availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.12.2021. Understand the guidelines and conditions for dealing with discrepancies and the eligibility of ITC based on rule 36(4) of CGST Rules
Explore the crucial judgment of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT Vs Western Geco International Ltd. A deep dive into issues of taxation under Sections 44DA, 44B, and 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
Draft SA 540 (Revised), Auditing Accounting Estimates and Related Disclosures deals with the auditor’s responsibilities relating to accounting estimates and related disclosures in an audit of financial statements.
Draft SQM 2, Engagement Quality Reviews applies to all engagements for which an engagement quality review is required to be performed in accordance with proposed SQM 1.2 This SQM is premised on the basis that the firm is subject to proposed SQM 1. This SQM is to be read in conjunction with relevant ethical requirements.
MCA approves withdrawal of another 7,338 prosecutions pending before various courts under Special Arrears Clearance Drive-II towards promoting Ease of Doing Business and decriminalisation of compoundable offences under Companies Act, 2013
Read the full text of the judgment/order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding sealing or breaking premises. Get detailed analysis and conclusion.This article provides an overview of the judgment/order issued by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Enforcement. The court clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act regarding the sealing or breaking of premises. The analysis delves into the arguments presented by the petitioner and the response from the learned counsel for the Revenue. Finally, the conclusion highlights the court’s decision and subsequent actions. Analysis: The petitioner, Singhi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., challenges the order issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 67(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, a private limited company, claims to be a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. The case revolves around the sealing of the petitioner’s premises by the respondent officers during a search operation. The petitioner argues that the sealing was done without legal authority. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the authorization order for the search was issued solely based on suspicion and does not grant the authority to seal the premises. Additionally, it is argued that Section 67(4) of the Act does not empower the respondent No.3 to seal the business premises since access was not denied by the petitioner. On the other hand, the Revenue’s counsel presents the original file, which contains an authorization issued by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Enforcement], South Zone, Bangalore. The authorization grants the officer, Sri J.J. Prakash, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the power to conduct inspection, search, and seizure of the premises in question. The court acknowledges the validity of this authorization, thus refuting the petitioner’s argument. The court refers to Section 67(4) of the Act, which empowers the authorized officer to seal or break open premises and receptacles suspected of containing goods, accounts, registers, or documents. The Revenue asserts that denial of access to the computer system and the disruption of the tally software and internet connection led to the invocation of Section 67(4) and subsequent sealing of the premises. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing the respondent No.3, assures the court that the petitioner’s premises will be unsealed in the petitioner’s presence on a mutually convenient date, provided the petitioner cooperates with the inspection and search of the computer system and other records. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court orders the Revenue to unseal the premises in question on a revised date of 08.02.2019, at 11:00 a.m. The petitioner is expected to cooperate with the inspection and search of the premises, including the computer system. This judgment clarifies the power of officers under Section 67(4) of the GST Act and emphasizes the importance of lawful procedures in conducting searches and sealing premises.
Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) invites public feedback on the proposed changes to the PFRDA (Point of Presence) Regulations 2018. Learn about the key areas of change and how it aims to simplify processes and ensure the growth of the NPS. Stakeholders can access the draft proposal on the PFRDA website and submit […]
Discussing the recent ITAT Guwahati order that dismissed a revenue appeal, citing that the tax effect involved was less than the CBDT-prescribed monetary limit. Exploring the case of ITO vs Hotchand Kalachand Loungani.
Read the amendment issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding the definition of an investment fund under the Income Tax Act. The amendment clarifies the criteria for funds established or incorporated in India and regulated under SEBI or IFSCA regulations.
