Lupin Ltd. Vs Union of India (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The petitioner challenged ex-parte order refund cannot be rejected merely for non-submission of documents. Relies upon the rule 90(3) and proviso thereto of CGST Rules. The Petitioner challenged ex-parte order rejecting claim for refund on the ground of non-submission of documents. Argues that the circular […]
Delhi High Court held that in view of provisions of section 469 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, complaint filed after expiry of six months is barred by limitation.
Telangana HC follows SC Judgment in Filco Trade on opening of GST Portal for claiming transitional credit for two months from 01.09.2022 to 30.10.2022.
Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Rani Girdhar v. ITO held that Assessing officer cannot add primary allegation in Notice by issuing Supplementary Notice.
Opportunity to cross examine witnesses not given to petitioner. Rule of alternate remedy not a bar for High Court to exercise Writ jurisdiction.
Pallavi Naresh Shah Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) No reply was filed by the assessee due to technical glitch on portal. order passed subsequently, under Section 147 r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 set aside. Matter remanded back. The Petitioner challenged the order of assessment passed under section 147 read […]
Impugned show cause notices are void and bad-in-law in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice.
HC held that genuine hardship faced by tax consultant which led to omission of timely filing of petitioner’s return sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b)
Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court) The HC directed the Revenue Department to issue the rectified C-Forms, subject to the verification of entitlement on merits, without being burdened with issue concerning limitation. The petitioner is a telecom service provider. It undertook inter-state sales (C Forms). There was an error. […]
Whether on account of non reconciliation of purchases reflected by the party in GSTR 1 without supplying necessary details, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/144B is sustainable in law?
