Noor M. Saied Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) Petitioner has purchased the property for valuable consideration and in the absence of charge over the property by the Sales Tax Department, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay alleged arrears of Sales Tax for the defaulting dealer and for such reason, the […]
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the provisions of deemed dividend would not attract in case of mere issuance of a cheque that was subsequently cancelled and returned. While quashing a departmental appeal against the order of ITAT, the bench clarified that payment of any sum is necessary to constitute deemed dividend for the purpose of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Central Government had, till date, not notified the documents that have to be carried by a transporter of the goods in the course of interstate movement. Under the said circumstances and finding that neither the State Legislature nor the State Government would have the power to make laws/rules to govern interstate movements of goods in the course of trade, and for the purposes of levy of tax, detention for the sole reason that the transportation was not accompanied by the prescribed documents under the IGST Act/CGST Act/CGST Rules, cannot be legally sustained.
It is held that where no facility for advance ruling was made available under GST, it was held that Department must accept manually application for advance ruling under GST since web portal would not be ready to accept the same till January, 2018.
Where the assessee was trying to offset its IGST liability partially from CGST credit and partially from SGST credit but disallowed by GSTN portal with a message to first offset CGST credit completely before cross utilization. As there is no provision in GST law against such utilisation, Department was directed to file reply by next hearing date.
In this case the assessee had imported coal prior to the introduction of goods and service tax regime and had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate. On the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit had been allowed on such cess and Department again asked to pay fresh cess under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. In view of the fact that the validity of a Union legislation is questioned, court ordered for notice to be issued.
Allahabad High Court has directed GST Department to place on record the reasons for cancellation of GST registration without giving personal hearing and by keeping the same on GST website.
It was held that since the User ID and Password of the assessee was not working no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner for not filing the GST return within the time stipulated.
In the present case, the assessee was in the bottling business for Parle Group of Companies, there was a right of first refusal and the assessee was to carry on the business of bottling for the Coca Cola Company. A detailed business plan was submitted. However, the Coca Cola Company, without any specific reason, rejected the business plan.
CIT Vs. Apex Finlease Ltd. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court) Section 269SS does not include in its ambit where there is a transaction of loan or deposit by way of entries in the books of account by crediting or debiting the account of the other person. In other words, the provisions of section 269SS of […]
