Vinayaka Steels Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) it was incumbent upon the authority under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to have heard the petitioner in person, prior to passing of the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order rejects the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide reply dated […]
Not only the order is nonspeaking, but cryptic in nature and the reason of cancellation not decipherable therefrom. Principles of natural justice stand violated and the order needs to be quashed as it entails penal and pecuniary consequences.
Motiprabha Infrated Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (ITAT Patna) Undisputedly, minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under the provisions of Section 74(A) of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment due and prior to the expiry of 30 days, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the order, ex […]
Balkrishna Industries Limited Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The petitioner has prayed for direction to refund of Rs. 21,71,74,611/-, which is unutilised input tax credit to be refunded without any Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) debit with interest. Section 16 of the Act allows registered person to take credit on input tax […]
The show cause notice issued to the petitioner in this case shows that the same has been issued in Form GST Reg 31, which is the form for issuing a notice regarding suspension of registration.
When investigation has already commenced prior to the filing of application, the ARA shall not admit the application as per proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 98, we are of the view that the ARA should not have admitted the application in the instant case and issued its ruling.
Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Madras High Court) This order, passed in a batch of 44 writ petitions is a sequel to several earlier orders passed in other batches of writ petitions wherein the cause of action is similar/identical to that in the present writ petitions. All petitioners challenge either orders passed […]
Randhawa Construction Co Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The show cause notice should reflect the jurisdictional facts based on which the final order is proposed to be passed. The person proceeded against would then have an opportunity to show cause that the authority had erroneously assumed existence of a jurisdictional fact and, since […]
Parvez Peerpasha Inamdar Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune) It is seen that the only reason taken note of by the ld. PCIT for revising the assessment order is that the assessee had deposited Rs.92.25 lakh in his savings bank account which was not properly examined by the AO. The assessee categorically submitted before the AO that […]
Hitesh Manshukhbahi Dave Vs JCIT (ITAT Rajkot) Gujarat High Court in the case of Dr. Rajaram L. Akhaniv ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 693 (Gujarat) has held that where assessee had accepted a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from his son to meet urgent requirement of depositing margin money in bank account for buying a vehicle […]
