V. Vasanthakumar Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, postulates the qualifications for appointment of a Judicial Member and, as per the said provision, a Member of the Indian Legal Service who held the post of the Additional Secretary or equivalent post in that […]
Agrometal Vendibles Private Limited Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) The intimation under sub-section (5) of Section 74 has to be strictly in Form GST DRC – 01A. It is not a show cause notice. In the intimation, the dealer should be informed that if he fails to make the payment, the next step […]
Considering the fact that there is only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there is no intention to evade tax, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to release the vehicle and the consignment to the petitioner, if the same has not been released already.
Siddharth Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Ms Das De appearing for the respondents was given an opportunity by an order of this court dated March 17, 2022 to satisfy from record that a copy of the proposed draft assessment order was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned assessment […]
Ashika Credit Capital Limited Vs Union of India And Ors. (Calcutta High Court) Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the Revenue was asked to produce the record to establish that the recorded reasons were existing at the time of issuance of impugned notice under Section 148 and initiation of impugned assessment proceeding under Section […]
CIT (Exemptions) Delhi Vs India Hiv Aids Alliance (Delhi High Court) Assessee is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It gives 85% of the donation received by it to the Government of India for HIV Aids and only 15% of its total donation is given to other societies for awareness and […]
Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Mere mention of ‘misreporting’ for denying immunity from penalty, manifestly arbitrary; Notice without ‘specific limb’, unreasonable Delhi High Court allows Schneider Electric’s writ petition, quashes order rejecting immunity under Section 270AA(4) and directs Revenue to grant immunity from penalty under Section 270A; […]
Shivaco Associates & Anr. Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax, (Calcutta High Court) The petitioners claim refund in accordance with Section 54(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that credit has accumulated on account of rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies. Admittedly, the rate of […]
. Respondent nos.4 and 5 shall also explain why the concerned officer, who is delaying the refund, should not be penalized in as much as why he should not be directed to pay the interest from his pocket on the refund. We note this because though petitioner will be getting refund with 6% interest, it is public money that is being used to pay the interest.
Richie Rich Exim Solutions Vs Commissioner of CGST Delhi South (Delhi High Court) In this case GST refund was rejected without giving a personal hearing as per proviso to rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of the same Delhi High Court set aside the order. A perusal of the audit history does […]
