Madras High Court held that the Appellate Authority should have gone into the reasons adduced by the writ petitioner for non-filing of GSTR-3B return. In absence of the same, the impugned order cancelling GST registration set aside and matter remanded back to Appellate Authority for examination.
Delhi High Court held that loss on account of the Forward Contracts cannot be considered as speculative loss and hence loss on Forward Contracts is allowable as a deduction from the income chargeable to tax even if the Forward Contracts have not closed.
Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the circular issued by District Central Cooperative Banks as the circular merely sought to bring to the notice of the petitioner societies the statutory provisions in regard to the deduction of tax, enjoining that they adhere to and comply with the same.
Gujarat High Court held that provisional attachment of property under section 83 of the CGST Act can be invoked only during pendency of certain proceedings. In absence of any initiation of proceedings, powers of provisional attachment cannot be exercised.
Gujarat High Court held that due to zero supply it was believed that GST return is not required to be filed. Further, the consultant also didn’t advise the petitioner correctly. Accordingly, order of cancellation of GST registration on account of non-filing of GST return was quashed
Tata Steel Limited Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court) Interlocutory Application No. 9617/2022 has been preferred for ignoring defect and exemption from filing certified copy of Annexure-9 which is the photocopy of the appellate order. It is submitted that since the record of the Inferior Authorities are before the learned Commercial Taxes Tribunal, certified […]
CIT International Taxation Vs Bellsea Ltd. (Delhi High Court) HC held that duration of a permanent establishment would commence with the performance of business activities in connection with the building site or assembly project. A building site or an assembly project can only be construed at fixed place of business only when an enterprise commences its […]
Jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued against the dead person and the assessment order has also been passed against the dead person on his PAN without bringing on record all his legal representatives, therefore, the said assessment order and the subsequent notices are null and void and are liable to be set aside.
HC held that benefit under SVLDR Scheme could not be denied on the ground that the quantification required to be done under SVLDR Scheme is actually self-assessment done during duration of Audit.
Delhi High Court held that the issue relating to passing on the liability or reimbursement thereof does not relate to the taxing power of the state or any action taken or an order made in exercise thereof. The contention that the dispute raised is non-arbitrable on the aforesaid ground is thus negative.
