HC directs AO to provide effective cross-examination opportunity in accordance with provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and permit petitioner to cross- examine without in any manner interfering or restricting.
Since the E-way bill had expired an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 and a notice in Form GST MOV-07 were issued wherein the petitioner company was directed to show cause as to why the proposed tax and penalty to the tune of Rs. 19,61,100/- be not imposed.
Kankipati Rajesh vs Adjudicating Authority (Delhi High Court) Delhi High court Frowns on Use of Disconcerting Language in Legal Proceedings by PMLA Adjudication Authorities Recently, the High Court of Delhi issued an order dated 21.04.2023 in the case of W.P.(C) 3109/2023 & CM APPL. 12095/2023, 19827/2023, highlighting the importance of using standard formats and principles […]
Madras High Court considers withdrawal of customs duty exemption for Apollo Hospitals’ imported medical equipment. Analysis of compliance with Notification No.64/88.
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited Vs Directorate General of Goods Services Tax Intelligence (Karnataka High Court) HC held that There is a distinct difference between games of skill and games of chance; games such as rummy, etc. as was discussed in several decisions above and particularized in the Division Bench decision of this Court in All India […]
No ample opportunity was given to the legal heirs of the deceased assessee. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the original authority for affording due opportunity to the legal heirs of the original assessee to put forth their case.
Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Jindal Steel and Power Ltd (Orissa High Court) It appears that the opposite party exported final products on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 69,98,64,638/- during the period 01.01.2017 to 03.2017, and claimed rebate, vide application dated 14.08.2017, under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, […]
Petitioner admittedly made an application seeking for exit from EOU/STPI scheme and it was its specific case that it had not imported any capital goods or procured any capital goods in respect of project.
Sahil Infra Creative Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) The position which unfolds in this case is that the petitioner assesse had filed its objections to the notice for reassessment under section 148 unamended issued to him, however, the Assessing Officer never attended to the objections dated 12.10.2022 and left it undecided. Thereafter, the […]
Chennai Port Authority Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner’s request for personal hearing through video conferencing was not considered and the same was mechanically rejected and the impugned orders were passed, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice. In similar circumstances, this […]
