Whether Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that respondent cannot be hold responsible for amount not deposited by selling dealer and allowed benefit of Input Tax Credit which ultimately will amount to double jeopardy to State as selling dealer has not deposited tax whereas subsequent dealer has claimed benefit of Input Tax Credit.
Held Issuance of warrant of attachment in respect of any property situated outside the local limits of jurisdiction is barred in view of the provisions of Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence, the executing Court at Rajkot was directed to examine the matter afresh.
Suneesh K.S. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board (Kerala High Court) Facts- The petitioner is the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the Board for the sale of pooja items and flower garlands inside Valliyamkavu Devi Temple from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022. Later on, the petitioner failed to deposit some of the instalments. The main reason for the […]
HC quashed ’SCN’ issued by Revenue Department suspending GST registration of the assessee and directed to reissue a fresh SCN with all the relevant facts and reasons within a week’s time regarding. Further, directed the Revenue Department to restore the assessee’s GST registration and issue a practice direction so that in future, if any SCN for cancellation of GST registration is issued, the same is not bereft of any material particulars or reasons.
HC held that the Revenue Department cannot issue assessment orders without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and is against the principles of natural justice. Further, remanded back the matter to be heard as a fresh case.
National Radio Electronics Corporation Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) (Kerala High Court) The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order issued under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 to the extent it invoked the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, while obtaining release of the goods detained under Section 129(1) of the […]
Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had created the fake seven firms and claimed input tax credit of Rs.16,99,89,923 (Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three).
Md Faruk Alam Vs State of Assam (Gauhati High Court) In accordance with the order dated 30.9.2021, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, has interaction with one Assistant Commissioner of GST, and after interaction and verification of the relevant GST Portal, the GST papers furnished by […]
Cresent Co. Vs CIT (Orissa High Court) In the present case, mere non-issuance of production of sale memos could not have been a ground to reject the entire books of account particularly since it pertained to sale of country liquor to tribal populations. Also the ITAT appears to have overlooked the fact that the books […]
K.Vinodhkumar Vs Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) Learned counsel for writ petitioner draws the attention of this court to Sub Rule (3) of Rule 86 A and submits that on a demurrer that even if the attachment is for a valid reason under 86 A, the same elapsed on 17.02.2021, on […]
