A perusal of the instruction would show that PAN – AAACK4O32H concerns an entity going by the name K.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. This PAN does not concern M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner’s stand that it had not entered into any transaction with M/s Kanhaiya Impex Pvt. Ltd. is correct. Given this position, in our view, both the notice which is issued under Section 148 A (b) of the Act and the order that was passed under Section 148 A (d) of the Act suffer from obvious errors.
Bombay HC sets aside Recovery Notice imposing Interest on Gross GST Tax Liability without giving an opportunity of being heard to Appellant
HC held that There is no absolute bar against a lawsuit or legal proceedings continuing concurrently with liquidation proceedings under Section 33(5) of IBC (Liquidation Moratorium), unlike Section 14 of IBC (CIRP Moratorium).
Delhi High Court held that compensation received from Government of Goa on cancellation of plot is capital receipt and hence not taxable.
Jharkhand High Court held that impugned order passed, confirming penalty for expiry of e-way bill, without proper application of mind and without dealing with the contention raised by the petitioner is against the violation of principles of natural justice and hence bad in law.
Bombay High Court held that suo moto order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court directing exclusion of period 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 due to Covid outbreak is applicable even in case of filing of refund application.
Kamal Nath Vs PCIT (Calcutta High Court) What are the grounds on which transfer of assessment records/jurisdiction can be challenged u/s 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? In this high profile case relating to ex-chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, when Dr A M Singhvi along with Mr JP Khaitan represented the petitioner before Hon’ble Justice […]
Gujarat High Court held that it is settled legal position that the directions given by the higher authority is binding upon the lower authority and therefore, such directions cannot be ignored on any count.
HC held that notice is needed to be served to assessee under Rule 25 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) before physical inspection is carried out.
Not only the GST Registration cancellation 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
