Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2017’) issued by Respondent […]
Mere use of the words or expression wilfully suppressed with intend to avoid duty cannot hold the assessee guilty of wilful suppression. The same has to be established by the department by pointing out as to on what basis they have come to the prima facie conclusion that there has been wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Therefore, mere use of the said words and expression cannot validate the show cause notice. Therefore, the initiation of the proceedings itself is bad in law.
Access Tough Doors P. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner ST (Telangana High Court) Section 31(1) of the TVAT Act deals with appeal to appellate authority. Sub-Section (1) enables filing of such appeal by an aggrieved dealer. As per second proviso thereto, such an appeal shall not be admitted by the appellate authority unless the dealer produces […]
Greenlights Power Solutions Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court) Revenue found a mistake in the format in the date in respect of the e-way bill and hence the petitioner was imposed with an amount of Rs.27,540/- as tax and a penalty of Rs.27,540/-. The said final order is challenged in this writ petition. Petitioner […]
Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court) A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle which has been brought on record as Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner generated E-way bill which is required to be carried along with the […]
Thanikodi Vs Parameswari (Madras High Court) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the driver of the offending vehicle does not posses driving licence, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability and they have to pay and recover and relied upon the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & […]
PCIT Vs Cherian Abraham (Karnataka High Court) The undisputed facts are that the search was conducted in the case of a search person on 06.02.2012. Pursuant to which Section 153C proceedings were initiated against the assessee. Notice under Section 142[1] was issued on 12.09.2013 calling the assessee to file the return. Reply was filed on […]
Vijendra Stores Vs State of Haryana and others (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Section 20(5) of Haryana VAT Act, 2003 Act mandates that any amount refundable to any person as a result of an order passed by any Court, appellate authority or revising authority, shall be refunded to him on an application made in the […]
This court, in the case of Heritage Lifestyles and Developers and Private Limited, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the petitioner in that case was allowed to make such claim if the petitioner was otherwise eligible for credit of the amount. Considering those facts, this Court in the said judgment directed the respondents to accept the TRAN-1 filed by the petitioner and to give the due of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger/input tax credit of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order.
Tvl. Jai Guru Cables Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was running a Cable T.V. business. He had suffered an adverse assessment order vide order in Original No.MAD-CEX-000-ASC-021-11 dated 26.12.2011. […]
