Kerala High Court held that statutory charge created against dealers as per the provisions of KGST Act, 1963 and KVAT Act, 2003, prior to any mortgage made, against the dealer would remain intact, even if the property is sold by Bank.
Gujarat High Court held that issued raised in reopening assessment was already considered during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer cannot be ground for reopening of assessment.
Madras High Court held that section 84 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 provides for the rectification of an error apparent on record and not one which involves discussion, debate or possible multiple opinions.
Held that, non-supply of documents referred in the ‘reason to believe’ notice along with the notice to the assessee deems the reassessment proceeding and any consequential proceedings illegal and is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.
A short question of law involved in this writ petition is that whether a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the assessing officer after the expiry of one year as per Section 153(6)(i) is valid without disposing the return filed to the first notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the very same assessment year.
Gujarat High Court held that once the primary onus is discharged by the assessee, it is the assessing officer who will need to make an inquiry under Section 133(6). Addition unsustainable in absence of such inquiry.
Assessing Officer, however, denied the benefit on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish a certificate from the concerned Port Authority certifying that the structure was a part of the Port, which it considered mandatory in view of the Board’s notification dated 23rd June 2000 followed by Circular No.10 of 2005 dated 16th December 2005.
Calcutta High Court held that timeline prescribed under Regulation 17(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) relating to completion of the proceedings and passing of the final order within 90 days from the date of receipt of inquiry report is mandatory in nature.
Dr. U.S. Awasthi Vs Adjudicating Authority Pmla & Anr. (Delhi High Court) The Petitioner’s contention is that in terms of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005, only orders under Section 13(2) and Section 8 of PMLA are appealable to the Appellate Tribunal. As per the Petitioner, an order passed in an application seeking cross-examination […]
Under the terms of Deed of Licence, since the petitioner had agreed to pay service tax in addition to the monthly licence fee fixed thereunder and the GST being a levy which has been introduced in the place of service tax, the petitioner cannot absolve herself of the liability to pay GST in place of service tax.
