ABB India Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner is a manufacturer of circuit breakers and switch gears of high voltage. The Petitioner exported the goods under ten shipping bills dated 21 January 2008, 5 February 2008, 12 February 2008, 4 March 2008, 11 March 2008, 11 June, 2008, 5 June, 2008, […]
Dr. Satyajit Bose Vs DCIT (Calcutta High Court) Admittedly, under the under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS, 2016) , the third installment of income tax ought to have been remitted by the appellant not later than 30th September, 2017 but was remitted on 16th October 2017 Since the scheme did not provide for any extension […]
Sudhan Chandra Basak Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) This application is filed on basis of some undisputed facts that orders of penalty were passed against applicant under Sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c) and 273(b) of Income Tax Act for late filing of return for Assessment Year 1983-84. These orders were challenged by way of three […]
Under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 The burden to prove the material which was recovered by the various mobile squads was upon the Department and burden could not have been shifted upon the assessee to prove the same. Further, the assessee has denied the transaction having been made by him.
HC held that assessee cannot approach High Court when first remedy is still available. Directed the assessee to approach the State Tax Authority who passed the detention order and seek to revoke it by answering all the allegations.
Admittedly for initiation of proceedings against the petitioner a notice as provided for under Rule 142(1A) of the Rules in Part A of FORM GST DRC-01A was not issued, which provided for communication of details of any tax, interest and penalties as ascertained by the officer.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that as the initial recovery against the co-accused stands acquitted, enhancement of sentence of the petitioner who was nominated on their statements becomes unsustainable in law.
Calcutta High Court held that conjoint reading of section 18(1)(c) and section 18(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 definitely propagate that the duty to get the sale proceeds of export to be repatriated expiry with the statutory period of six months.
Gujarat High Court held that as the bonded period is expired, the importer is liable to pay the customs duty. Importer cannot re-export the goods under section 69 without payment of the customs duty.
Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Vs Ashirwad Foundries Private Limited And Anr (Calcutta High Court) Whether central excise can move against legal heirs of a deceased person to recover the penalty imposed under Act. The Division bench of Calcutta High Court in this case was dealing with an important matter where the Department filed […]
