Bhupendra Pal Singh Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) that there being no valid and acceptable explanation for the delay of almost 6 (six) years in issuance of the charge-sheet coupled with the fact that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on November 30, 2011, it would be just and proper and in […]
HC set aside the summons issued by the Revenue Department without any details of the inquiry, wherein the assessee was co-operating in furnishing the documents as requisitioned and to provide further details. Held that, summons is a last resort and are not to be issued in a casual manner.
Chartered Accountant Amit Agarwal seeks bail in OGST Act fraud case involving fake business entities and alleged GST fraud of Rs.319.64 crore.
Hermes I Tickets P Ltd Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) In this case The petitioner has made out a case for interference as the impugned order has been passed based on the assumption that the amount urging in the petitioner’s account during the period were ‘an unexplained income’ of the petitioner. The fact remains that […]
Assessing Officer has assumed jurisdiction to straight away pass the final order without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144C of the Act. It is held in SHL (India) Private Limited (supra) that this is not a mere irregularity but an incurable irregularity.
Aditya Energy Holdings Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Madras High Court) The amount paid by the petitioner are only deposits pending proper adjudication under Section 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. It appears that the amounts were collected from the petitioner during March 2021, at the time when summons were also issued to the […]
Sunil Jay Prakash Singh Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) A perusal of the Order passed by the Respondent No.5 indicates that the applications were rejected without affording any opportunity of being heard. The question, as to, whether the tax liabilities are already quantified or not as on 30th June 2019 itself is a […]
High Court set aside the retrospective amendment in Industrial Policy Resolution denying GST reimbursement as the Court was not satisfied of the reasons given by the Opposite Parties for discriminating against assessee unit vis-à-vis KPCW which appeared to be identically placed as assessee and nowhere does IPR 2007 state that a cement producing unit that sources raw materials from outside would be ineligible to receive the incentives.
HC dismissed the applicability of Circular in a petition challenging the conduct of alleged parallel investigation by various jurisdictional authorities and affirmed the investigations conducted various jurisdictional authorities of the Revenue Department into entities having common nexus. Held that, Circular cannot be extended to cover all and myriad situations that may arise in the administration and the functioning of the GST structure.
Sunita Ramesh Bansal Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (Gujarat High Court) It appears that Ms. Veena Bhagvandas Jindal from whom the writ applicant purchased the plot, at one point of time, was a Director in a Company by name the Jindal Alufoils Pvt. Ltd. According to the writ applicant, she came to know upon […]
