Respondent had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security.
Bombay High Court held that importers who fall under Notification No. 27/02-Cus dated 1st March 2002 are not entitled to any drawback under Section 74 of Customs Act 1962.
Nexage Innovations Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs & ors. (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court directs removal of Risky exporter tag and allows refund of duty drawback and IGST claim Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter M/s. Nexage Innovations Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs & Ors M.A.T. 916 of […]
Sailesh Chandra Dutta Vs Assistant Commissioner (Calcutta High Court) Calcutta High Court quashes garnishee proceedings and original assessment order passed in violation of natural justice against which no appeal preferred Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter Sailesh Chandra Dutta Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Raiganj Charge, Raiganj & Ors M.A.T. 1062 […]
The attachment of the overdraft bank account was done by way of initiation of garnishee proceedings as a sequel to an order of assessment which had attained finality as the appeal against such assessment order was filed before the wrong forum and mandatory pre deposit for the purpose of filing of the appeal was also not made.
The common but most important feature in all these cases was that the entitlement of the writ petitioners to the input credit had crystallized. This crystallized right, which had ripened into the vested right, was being denied on account of procedural problem.
The show cause notice does not even allege that petitioner has obtained registration by fraud or willful misstatement or suppression of facts. There is a digital signature appended in the said document which says signature is not verified. Therefore, we have to take it to be an unsigned document. We fail to understand how it can be an official document.
Held that the conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of fact is untenable as the Act contemplates a positive action which betrays a negative intent of wilful default.
Abdul Majeed Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) High Court held that while passing an order under Section 148A of the Act, the authority is required to reach satisfaction to not only that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, but in case where three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, […]
Hemraj Jain Vs State of West Bengal (Calcutta High Court) Section 107 of the WBGST 2017 Act provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by an Adjudicating Authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which such decision […]
